Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?

Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.

There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.

This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.

Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.

A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I happened across "Bait" on cable one night just as it started and thought, "Eh, why not?" I'm glad I gave it a chance.

"Bait" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film.

Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.

The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.

I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, "deep real love" You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the "super-deep" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.

Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.

The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.

Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting.

Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever!