Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "The Lady in Question (1999)" starring Gene Wilder is a well-acted mystery drama that reminds me of the old black-and-white Raymond Burr Perry Mason series. Both Perry and "Cash" kept me guessing right up to the end. There were many suspects with a motive for the murder, but I had no idea which character it would be.

Gene Wilder has a special charming wit about him, even in his facial expressions and vocal inflections which make him perfect for the part. The portions of the movie which portrayed actors acting was done very well. I'm sure this is an additional challenge for the cast to pull off. I am not surprised to see that he did some of the writing for the movie. Even his singing was a delight. I like him in this role more than his former "sillier" roles like "The Young Frankenstein" and "Willy Wonka." I am hoping A & E will continue this series. They ought to call it something like "The A & E Gene Wilder Mysteries."

The music fit the period. I enjoyed the cool live combo and the swing tunes. I was a little unclear at the beginning whether we were seeing a flashback or whether the action was taking place in that time period. And I do not agree that the inclusion of profanity is necessary to the flow of the script. To me, that always distracts.

Overall, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this second in a well-crafted start in what we hope will be many others -- just like one of our other favorites: Raymond Burr's Perry Mason.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is an absolutely incredible film. It shows South African racism from the perspective of the victims, and provokes a feeling of anti-racism in everyone who sees it. It is the best historic film I have ever seen.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: As a long time fan of Peter O'Donnell's greatest creation, I watched this film on DVD with no great hopes of enjoyment; indeed I expected to be reaching in disgust for the remote control within fifteen minutes. But instead I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and I especially enjoyed and appreciated how the producers and director succeeded in telling the Modesty Blaise back story. They managed to avoid the trap of making a (bad) film version of the books we are all so familiar with, choosing instead to concentrate on a period in Modesty's life only alluded to in the novels.

As for the production values (and I am no student of cinematography!): yes, the film was filmed on a tight financial and time budget and maybe that shows... but does it spoil the viewer's enjoyment? In this case I think not. Instead we are introduced to one of the world's greatest literary heroines and given a taste of her capabilities.

In regard to the casting: because we in unfamiliar territory the only people who really matter are Modesty and (perhaps) Professor Lob. For me they were totally credible. Alexandra Staden, described by some as wooden, and too thin to be an action heroine, brought to the screen Modesty's poise and coolness; her technique (when martial arts were needed) but most importantly personified the integrity which is at the core of the Modesty Blaise canon.

OK, so we all know this film was produced to stake Miramax's claim to the Modesty Blaise character, it was made quickly and cheaply, BUT... I for one cannot wait to see the next production in this series by these producers - as long as they keep to the core values and characterisations of the original stories!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Rather annoying that reviewers keep comparing this to Planet Earth... Of *course* Planet Earth is better - it has much much more of the same. Earth is like an extended trailer for the Planet Earth series, and as such, is inevitably inferior and simplified. But that is not comparing like with like.

As a feature-length documentary (or actually as a feature-length anything), it surpasses pretty much anything you will see in your entire life (unless you choose to traverse the Earth in helicopters with long-range cameras for years on end, and wait for months in the most extreme environments to catch a glimpse of the most extraordinary beings on earth, which - lets face it - is unlikely).

On the narration: yes everyone in the UK - very much including me - adores David Attenborough, and there's little excuse for him not to be narrating here, but that hardly deserves knocking down a star or three. He wasn't a presenter on Planet Earth, just a narrator, and I'm sure he's modest and gracious enough to realise that anything that gets more viewers in is a Good Thing.

Anyone who sees this will be overwhelmed by its awe, majesty and glory. All reviewers agree on that. Those who love it (ie. everyone) will/should go on to see an buy Planet Earth. So three cheers for its cinematic release, and a big boooo for anyone cheap enough to buy this on DVD rather than the Planet Earth box-set. But as works of art they're not in competition here people.

The Earth is big enough for both.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A major disappointment. This was one of the best UK crime drama / detective shows from the 90's which developed the fascinating title character played by Scotland's Robbie Coltrane. However this one-off has little to add and perhaps suffers from an inevitable let down due to raised expectations when a favored show returns after a long hiatus. Coltrane isn't really given much to do, much more attention is spent on the uninteresting killer, and in what he has to act in, he seems uninvolved, almost bored. The ex-soldier's story is written by the books and the attempt to update us on Coltrane's family life seems lightweight. Perhaps if the writers had a whole series in front of them instead of just this one two-hour show they would have written this with much more depth. As is, skip this and watch the old Cracker from the 90's which is far far superior.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.

However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, "secretly roots for the Germans." There would be no "local color" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII.