Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Towards the end of the movie, I felt it was too technical. I felt like I was in a classroom watching how our Navy performs rescues at sea. I liked seeing that the engines have fire extinguishers. I guess I should have figured that out before, but I never thought about it. Using a 747 to transport valuable old paintings with very little security is odd and not realistic. The acting was pretty good, since they're mostly seasoned professionals, but if you're going to stretch so far from what would most likely happen, it should be more like a fantasy, comical, etc. Everything was taken too seriously. At least the movie had Felix Ungar as pilot, with Buck Rogers, the night stalker, and Dracula also on board. The movie was filled with well known faces. I understand that Hollywood has to exaggerate a bit for drama, but it does hurt the quality of a movie when a serious subject is made into a caricature. That's why I said it should have been more comical. My pet peeve with movies about airline travel is that everybody just casually moves about. They walk around with drinks, setting them down and picking them up 5 minutes later, just as if they're in a building or something, and acting as if turbulence just doesn't exist. Also, I know it's a disaster movie, but suspense doesn't have to include a 30 second crash after hitting something. Anyway, the skilled actors and actresses keep this weak script from having been made into a movie that got canned after it's first screening. I like Lee Grant, but it was fun to watch a psychotic person get decked...:)
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his "vision" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.

I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.

I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Although Bette Davis did a WONDERFUL job as Mildred, I felt that the film wasn't the best I had seen. At the end of the movie I was left feeling like there was something missing in it.

Bette Davis did a perfect job, though, and she made me hate her and pity her all the while. Leslie Howard did very good as the lovelorn Philip Carey, and I so pitied him throughout the movie for being in love with such a horrible dame. It's such a sad thing when one finds him/herself in love with a bad seed. And especially if it's someone like Philp Carey, who is a sensitive person, though pathetic.

In the end, the acting was what came through and not the plot. The ending scene was particularly good, but I am not one to give it away. Although others may find this movie good, I was one who found it so-so. I should recommend this movie to those who like a bad seed so they can see what may happen to them if they find themselves in love with that horrible person.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences:

1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.

2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.

3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.

Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This isn't art, it's inner-urban, politically-correct propaganda! Jindabyne's political intolerance is beyond unforgivable... it doesn't see people as individuals, but rather, as members of categories.

This is the most patronisingly offensive Australian movie I can recall ever (and it's up against some pretty stiff competition!). A message movie, every tired theme beloved of the trendy left is there: Aborigines are victims; white men are violent or alcoholics; white women aren't that bad -particularly if they are lesbians - but they're most likely of a depressive nature.

Four men who go away fishing, find the body of a murdered woman (Aboriginal, naturally) and leave her in the river for several days while they catch trout. It's a strange decision taken with almost no discussion, as if the men are animals. The one man who briefly demurs is the goodie... we know this because he's living with a bisexual woman - he likes to hold his baby a lot - and eventually moves to a more fashionable costal location (away from all these beastly bush-dwellers).

This is a film made by those trendy urbanites who live in fear of the Australian landscape and those evil rednecks who reside within. It's ignorance of country life is almost as shocking as its contempt. The film is shot through with long-distance views of the bush backed by foreboding, mysterious music. It's made very clear by the end that Aboriginal people are the only ones at home in this landscape. It concludes with an excruciatingly implausible scene of black-white reconciliation.

In Jindabyne, country life is reduced to little more than a backdrop for a story that by implication proclaims the superiority of the values of enlightened leftist urban dwellers over those of other Australians.

This film was not made by people with real jobs but funded by the Government's Film Finance Corporation. It's a product of the artsy set, that soulless void populated by the beautiful people for whom lavish government funding sustains these patronisingly offensive projects (which are as detached from real life as possible), as opposed to actually making popular films people want to see. It doesn't matter if the film is a stinker, they still get paid.

Spare yourself from wasting time, avoid it like the plague. More jaded social commentary than actual entertainment, this film deserves to pan!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
What a weekend. Two days ago I watched the first half of "War Games 2: Dead Code", now "While she was out". I am trying to come to a decision which one was worse in terms of pain in my mind while watching. I guess, "While she was out" was worse.

It has all been said before in other comments: Unrealistic, illogical etc. - the only thing I really have to add is that at some point I started feeling more for the evil guys than for the woman because I would have recommended her for a Darwin award if she actually died (only watched first half, so I don't know). Soon I was at two Darwin awards (if that's even possible) for her immense stupidity.

And, hey: Produced by Kim Basinger? So she did not only know the script but was also responsible for bringing this waste of money to us, the people? I consider humans who waste considerable amounts of money to be evil because the money could have used to feed and clothe quite a few people instead of hurting 80 percent of those who saw it in the cinema and giving 20 percent, which are idiots, a good opportunity to show just how much of an idiot they are.