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

Answer: Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Interesting how much more realistic Brosnan's performance is to that of the original James Bond novels when compared to the bond films. He's neurotic, paranoid, an alcoholic and a womanizer to boot. This is perfect break for him, even so much as to make fun of the bond icon. "I'm a mess, a parody of myself" he says. It doesn't get any better than that. I just finished reading Dr.No and this is very much how Ian Fleming had portrayed James Bond. Personally I never liked Brosnan as Bond because he fit the icon too closely. There was nothing for him to personalize the character with, as compared to Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Its great to see Brosnan play a character both grounded in reality and flamboyantly off the wall. A shallow character trying to come to an understanding on deeper emotional and psychological issues to which he has no background dealing with. It's an impressive portrayal, and having Greg Kinear to ground him, is just poetic. This movie reminds me a little bit of dynamics established between the main characters in "My Blue Heaven", but more genuine in their coping mechanisms.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What can I say about this film other than "don't see it". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values.

Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.

Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.

Waste of money. Waste of time.

Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.