Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Set in World Depression Era Prague, this is the story of an ambitious store clerk who is falling in love with a mystery woman with whom he has exchanged romantic letters, only to discover that the mystery woman is none other than the sales girl from his shop, who seems to be constantly bickering with the colleague. Add a little twist (the owner is convinced that his favorite employee -Stewart- is having an affair with the owner's wife), leaving Stewart briefly 'fired', along with an admission that the sales girl 'liked' Stewart all along, the happy ending is inevitable.

Although VERY dated (references to poverty and -I have a wife and two kids to consider- are over-used, along with the indication that many small objects of pleasure, like a musical cigar box, are out-of-reach for common people's enjoyment), this film is much more effective (and more credible) than the 1990s re-make "You've Got Mail". In the re-make starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, the actual odds of the chain-of-events are so unbelievable that the viewer's intelligence is grossly offended.

"Shop Around The Corner" is an innocent stroll down memory lane into a less complicated, less hectic, and more romantic time and place known as a novelist's Utopia. Lovers of Classic Romantic Comedies will enjoy this picture!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iam surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish.

A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?

The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.

Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.

Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!)

Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable "twist") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another "twist." It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: In any number of films, you can find Nicholas Cage as a strong, silent hero, Dennis Hopper as a homicidal maniac, Lara Flynn Boyle as a vamp/tramp, and the late, lamented J.T. Walsh as the heavy. These are the types of roles these four can play in their sleep, and they have done so often enough that to see them playing them again borders on cliche. What a relief, therefore, that John Dahl, a master at getting a lot of mood out of a little action, directed this nuanced noirish thriller. Hopper manages to keep from going over the top, Cage shows a little more depth than his usually-superficial action heroes, Boyle is by turns sultry, innocent, and scheming, and one gets a sense of the hard iron of the soul that is central to his character, Wayne. Dahl's direction gives a sense of the emptiness of the Big Sky country where the story takes place while also being intimate enough to show how a wrinkled brow can indicate a radical change of plot in store. The plot twists are top-notch, and one of the other great twists in this movie is that some of the supporting characters actually act as if they have brains. It isn't often that minor characters like deputy sheriffs have more brains than their headlining superiors. But with a director as smart as Dahl, you shouldn't be surprised by the intelligence of anything connected with this film. An excellent movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I thought the original of this film was quaint and charming as well as having me sitting on the edge of my seat trying to figure it out.

Since I had already seen the original, when I saw this on Sci Fi Channel- I don't know if this remake was deliberately made for Sci Fi - I knew what it was within the first few minutes. Since I like Richard Burgi as a character actor, I wanted to see how he would pull it off.

The writers/producers etc, modernized the film a bit by trying to explain the plight of the "aliens" (They could no longer reproduce their own kind and needed help) using the same pseudo science that has been crammed in our ears in the 90's. Maybe it added a bit of polish to the film, or not.

This film. Film? This production takes on a more sinister edge than the original did- The original ended with a confrontation between the young woman and the alien and an understanding of sorts took place, although no resolution of the Alien's problem.

I sort of remember that in this remake, the woman became rather hostile towards the Burgi/Alien- I think it could have ended better. But the ending is just the ending, and the yarn is a swell yarn, being of the basic 1958 Science Fiction Pulp Stock. Many great science fiction stories were written in the 50's and some of them even made it to film.

This is a swell thing to watch on like a rainy day or something. I rate it highly cos of all the remakes of old 50's Sci Fi, this one came off well. I actually enjoyed this quite a bit.

But if anyone really wants to see this story told WELL, I suggest the original 1958 version with Tom Tyron and Gloria Talbott, directed by Gene Fowler Jr.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman.