Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: One of Boris Karloff's real clinkers. Essentially the dying Karloff (looking about 120 years older than he was)is a scientist in need of cash to finish his experiments before he dies. Moving from Morocco where his funding is taken over by someone else he goes to the South of France where he works a s physician while trying to scrap enough money to prove his theories. Desperate for money he makes a deal with the young rich wife of a cotton baron who is dying. She will fund him if he helps her poison the husband so she can take his money and carry on with a gigolo (who I think is married). If you think I got that from watching the movie you're wrong, I had to read what other people posted to figure out happened. Why? because this movie had me lost from two minutes in.I had no idea what was going on with its numerous characters and multiple converging plot lines. Little is spelled out and much isn't said until towards the end by which time I really didn't care. Its a dull mess of interest purely for Karloff's performance which is rather odd at times. To be honest this is the only time I've ever seen him venture into Bela Lugosi bizarre territory. Its not every scene but a few and makes me wonder how much they hung out.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I read reviews on this movie and decided to give it a shot. I'm an open minded guy after all and I've given good reviews to some pretty bad flicks. As the end credits rolled on this one I searched for meaning and something nice to say. Here goes: "This film was mercifully short." That's all I got.

Okay, Okay. The sets and visuals were well done and the music helped lend to the mood of asylum life but the film was painful to watch and the endless dialogue took away from the good bits. I did find myself laughing at this film but the way you laugh at your best friend who just embarrassed himself in front of a large crowd.

By the time of the "chicken dance" at the finale I had just decided to tuck and roll with the film and let the bodies fall where they fall. I don't know what could have salvaged this film. The acting was not bad and it looked like it had a budget but there just wasn't any way to make it watchable; not even the presence of beautiful bare breasts. Maybe I should have sparked a doobie or drank a LOT of beer to get the full experience of the film. Either way, I'm not watching this film again unless I'm really depressed. Then I can tell myself "At least I wasn't in 'Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon.' I'm better than those guys."
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.

The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.

But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.

For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This movie was disaster at Box Office, and the reason behind that is innocence of the movie, sweetness of the story. Music was good, story is very simple and old, but presentation of such story is very good, Director tried his best. Abhay is excellent and impressive and he shines once again in his role, he did his best in comedy or in emotional scene. Soha looks so sweet in the movie. Rest star cast was simply okay. Music and all songs are good, Himesh is impressive as an Singer here. Don't miss this movie, its a wonderful movie and a feel good one for us. Abhay best work till date. I will give 9/10 to Ahista Ahista.