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

Answer: Hey now, yours truly, TheatreX, found this while grubbing through videos at the flea market, in almost new condition, and in reading the back of the box saw that it was somewhat of a "cult hit" so of course it came home with me.

What a strange film. The aunt and cousin of former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis live in this decaying 28 room house out on Long Island (Suffolk Co.) and share the house with raccoons, cats, fleas (eyow!) and who knows what else. Suffolk Co. was all over them at one point for living in filth and old Jackie herself came by to set things right. Anyway, this is one strange pair, Big Edie and Little Edie...Edie (the daughter) always wears something over her head and dances, sings, and gives little asides to the camera that rarely make much sense. Big Edie (the mother, age 79) apparently likes to run around naked, and while we do get hints of what that might look like thankfully this was tastefully (?) done to the point where we're mercifully spared from that. These women talk and talk and talk, mostly about the past, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except to them. They live in absolute filth, cats doing their business wherever ("Look, that cat's going to the bathroom behind my portrait!"), and one bedroom appears to be their center of operations. If I close my eyes and listen to Big Edie's voice it reminds me very much of my own late aunt, who was from that area of the country and had that Lawn Guyland accent. One scene has Little Edie putting on flea repellent, lovely, you can see all the cats scratching all the time so the place must have been infested. The box refers to these two women as "eccentric", and I'd have to say in this case it is just a euphemism for "wacked out of their gourds", but this film is not without its moments where you truly feel something for them. This is equal parts creepy, sad, and disgusting, but I couldn't stop watching once I started. This is not my "normal" type of flick but I found it to be somewhat fascinating. It won't be for everybody though, guaranteed.

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

Answer: 10 out of 10, this brilliant, super documentary is a must see, with film clips from the war which people did not seen for years, untill this was screened in 1974. The film clips in this documentary from the war doesn't miss out anything, some of the clips left me dumbstuck. The whole series is over 20 episodes long, and Sir Lawrence Olivier is the narrator and tells a stunning story of war. Simply this is still probably the best documentary of war still, and now over 25 years old still is able to pack a tremendous punch. You must watch this at some time, even if it's a few episodes, even at that you will still be blown away at the impact this documentary means to those who have been there suffered and died in the name of WAR, in a WORLD AT WAR..

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

Answer: I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show.

Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes.

The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.

Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple.

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

Answer:
I really enjoyed this -- I'm a big fan of movies that mess with your mind and leave you with a lot of questions and ideas to debate, and this was a stellar example. But then, Terry Gilliam is always good at that (well, almost always. Let's just forget about Jabberwocky and The Brothers Grimm, shall we?).

I particularly liked the way it handled the time travel theme and the avoidance of paradoxes -- the way events in the past and future intertwined and fed into each other.

It was also really well done aesthetically -- the art direction was really great, and I wish I'd been able to see it on the big screen. The future scenes had a similar feel to Brazil in a lot of ways, and even the present scenes were often really visually compelling.

But perhaps the most striking thing about it was that it featured two actors I normally don't much like, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, and they both delivered amazing performances here. Pitt especially -- I'd seen one or two films before that made me realize he could in fact actually act (contrary to what I'd originally thought), but this one really outdid them. I actually found myself asking my friends at one point "Are you SURE that's Brad Pitt?" This is probably the most memorable performance of his career (though admittedly that may not be saying too much).