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

Answer: When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: - When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.

- Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.

- There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.

- It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.

- I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I love Paul McCartney. He is, in my oppinion, the greatest of all time. I could not, however, afford a ticket to his concert at the Tacoma Dome during the Back in the U.S. tour. I was upset to say the least. Then I found this DVD. It was almost as good as being there. Paul is still the man and I will enjoy this for years to come.

I do have one complaint. I would of like to hear all of Hey Jude.

Also Paul is not dead.

The single greatest concert DVD ever.

***** out of *****.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The Perfect Son is a story about two 30-something brothers, one who is seemingly "perfect" and the other who is basically a screw-up, frequently landing himself in drug rehab centers. After the death of their father, the two are brought together after a long absence and the usual sibling rivalry resurfaces. It isn't until the "perfect" brother makes the startling revelation that he has AIDS that the irresponsible younger brother finally makes a move to get his life in order, and take some responsibility.

The movie does a nice job of chronicling the younger brother's "comeback", though it may seem a bit far-fetched at times (beating drug addiction is never so easy). What makes the film more tender is the treatment of AIDS, a topic that has become somewhat passe in cinema over the last 5-10 years. And also the development of an almost sweet relationship between the two formerly feuding brothers is very believable and well-done. The two main actors were both very competent, if not terribly charismatic.

A solid first feature effort from director and writer Leonard Farlinger whose own brother died of AIDS. The ending is nicely done as well.

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

Answer: John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Even though we know how the story ends, this is a gripping fly-on-the-wall film that plays almost like a political thriller. During the calm before the storm, we meet Hugo Chavez as a charismatic, larger than life man who has an unbreakable connection with the mestizos who make up 80% of the population but have previously been shut out of Venezuela's political process and its oil wealth. He seems as devoted to them as they are to him. He travels the country at a hectic pace, reaching out to the campesinos, addressing huge crowds, hugging and kissing ordinary people, accepting letters on scraps of paper, and hearing pleas for help. The people are excited that one of their number has made it to the highest office in the land. There is an electric sense of hope and optimism that change for the better is coming to the festering barrios.

But not everyone is happy with the situation. The pure-blood Castillian Spaniard elite who are a small minority but previously controlled all the wealth are full of bitterness and resentment. One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when an Ann Coulter lookalike, at a residents' meeting in an exclusive gated community, complains of the mestizos, "they have no concept of struggle or sacrifice." Minutes later, a speaker tells the meeting to "beware of your domestic servants - they could be Chavez supporters." Duh! Of course they are.

In a late night interview alone with the film crew, Chavez reveals something of his soul as he tells the story of his grandfather. He can be a sensitive, poetic person, though with an impish, even clownish, sense of humor (like we saw when he addressed the UN and called Bush the devil.)

Then the storm starts to gather force as the coup organizers call for a mass protest and cynically manipulate their supporters into changing the route at the last minute and marching on the presidential palace, knowing it is surrounded by Chavez supporters and violence is inevitable.

Another element of the plot falls into place as snipers on rooftops begin to fire on the Chavez supporters, some of whom fire back. The local equivalent of Fox News shows this return fire and claims that Chavez supporters are massacring protesters. Then the camera pulls back and reveals that there are no protesters - the street is empty! The protesters took a different route. Needless to say the footage of the empty street was edited out by the rabidly anti-Chavez private TV stations (who had been airing a constant barrage of propaganda calling Chavez mentally ill and sexually fixated on Fidel Castro.) Immediately after the coup, we see the ringleaders and their media propaganda masters openly bragging on TV about how they had manipulated the situation with reckless disregard for the lives of supporters and opponents alike.

The filmmakers continue to be at the heart of this chaotic, fast-changing situation as the military coup surrounds the palace and threatens to bomb it. Chavez eventually surrenders to avoid bloodshed but refuses to resign and is whisked away to an offshore island where a plane awaits to take him - where? The US? How can the remaining cabinet members avoid arrest and defeat this heavily armed conspiracy of right-wing generals and ultra-wealthy businessmen who are closely linked to the Bush administration? Watch the movie and find out!

If your only knowledge of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela is from the US media, then you know nothing. He is not an "unelected tyrant" and does not "rule by decree" - he is enormously popular, having been elected and re-elected several times with over 60% of the vote (something George Bush Junior has never achieved) and the devotion he inspires in ordinary Venezuelan people is ultimately the reason why the coup fails.

This is an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man in an extraordinary situation. The skill of the filmmakers is in being unobtrusive and letting the story unfold through the voices of Venezuelans at every level from the barrio to the presidential palace, the tumultuous scenes, the chaos and confusion out of which a coherent whole emerges that is tense, riveting and moving. Not to be missed!