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

Answer: Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!

As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Dolph Lundgren stars as a former cop/boxer who searches Boston's kinky scene to find out who killed his brother,who was well thought of in the community, however along the way he learns how his brother enjoyed kinky sex and that a serial killer is to blame. Dolph Lundgren is very good in this movie, in fact on the basis of his performance here, one would forget Lundgren's rise to fame involved action roles. That said the material gives Lundgren nothing to work with, in fact, Lundgren is completely left out to dry in a dreary thriller which is both predictable and incomprehensible. Co-Star Danielle Brett is also good, in fact the film works best when it centers around the chemistry of Lundgren and Brett, indeed had the film taken the time to explore their relationship the film would've been fairly decent. However the movie is lackluster, the action is non-existent, the plot not given enough exploration (Too much boring B.S around Lundgren's investigation of his brother's employer) and the film is needlessly gory and ridiculous. Once again, Lundgren is actually really good (As is newcomer Danielle Brett) but the film just lumbers from one sequence to the next, which makes this movie particularly disappointing. If anything else though, it shows how underrated Lundgren is, as an actor.

*1/2 Out Of 4-(Poor)
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Will and Ted's Bodacious journey is an existential trip through themes of mortality, religion, time, Heaven and Hell, man's quest for fame and his fears of the body being overcome by a soulless machine. It is the most intelligent work of fiction since Paradise Lost and references many great past works of art- Dante, Iron Maiden, Virgil, Shakespeare. This time the dudes are a famous rock band having travelled through time collecting icons from the past- Napolean, Joan Of Ark (Noah's wife), Oscar Wilde, and Charles Darwin. They took the skills they learned from each of these people, abducted a couple of Princesses, and finally learned to play their guitars and write hit songs. These songs teach the world to love again and war, hunger, evil are vanquished for eternity. We fast forward into the distant future where an evil dictator who despises good music called Simon Cow-Al wants to rule the world. He eats Rooshus (the cool guy from the first film who helps Bill Playboy Esquire and Ted Theodore Alvin) and gains the power to send two cyborgs back in time. The cyborgs are living tissue over metal exoskeleton and coated in mimetic poly alloy allowing them the survive the turmoil of time travel, and they can imitate anything they sample by physical contact. It is their job to Kill the good Biff and Fred and take over their lives by making terrible music that no-one could like. By doing this they will change the world forever- Gryll and Jed's music will never be made leaving a world of war, famine, and hatred, and more annoyingly, bland boy/girl group pop music. There is a startling twist as the good guys actually are killed and they have to work out a way to save the world, themselves, and their wives from the evil Dopplebangers inhabiting their bodies.

Penelope Spheerhead shows her knowledge of both youth culture and real culture by mixing modern day music and phrases with post modern sets and artistic references, and seeks to teach us all something by delving into our very psyche to show us ourselves. She presents the nightmares which faced the late 80s teen in a society which had abandoned them and beckons us to dissect the post structuralist jingoism, self love, and malaise of the time. Charging us with a belief that we can indeed change the world it is an inspiring message, but in order to achieve such dreams we must traverse and indeed face our nightmares. To overcome is to succeed, to defeat Death is the first step in truly living and not merely surviving. In the words of Kenneth Reeves- 'Wow!' Best Scene: For a fun game- see how many songs, bands, and albums cover references you can spot throughout the film. There are at least 6.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Oliver! the musical is a favorite of mine. The music, the characters, the story. It all just seems perfect. In this rendition of the timeless classic novel turned stage musical, director Carol Reed brings the Broadway hit to life on the movie screen.

The transition from musical to movie musical is not an easy one. You have to have the right voices, the right set, the right script, and the right play. All signs point to yes for this play. It almost appears that it was written for the screen!

Our story takes place in jolly old England where a boy named Oliver manages to work his way out of the orphanage. He winds his way through the country to London where he meets up with a group of juvenile delinquents, headed by Dodger, the smart talking, quick handed pick-pocket. The leader of this gang is named Fagin, an older fellow who sells all the stolen goods.

But all is not well in London town when Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed and his loving girlfriend Nancy get tangled up with Oliver, Fagin and his young troops, and the law. What ensues is a marvelous tale of love, affection, and great musical numbers.

Whether or not you like musicals or not, one listen to these tunes and you will be humming them all day long. Oliver! is a triumph on and off the stage and is a timeless work of art.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.

We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.

I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT).

Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.

It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).

The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell).

With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.