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

Answer: The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.

Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.

A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.

I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.

The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.

The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The material in this documentary is so powerful that it brought me to tears. Yes, tears I tell you. This popular struggle of a traditionally exploited population should inspire all of us to stand up for our rights, put forth the greater good of the community and stop making up cowardly excuses for not challenging the establishment. Chavez represents the weak and misfortunate in the same way Bush is the face of dirty corporations and capitalism ran amok. Indeed, Latin America is being reshaped and the marginalized majority is finally having a voice in over five centuries. Though, in the case of Mexico, the election was clearly stolen by Calderon. Chavez is not perfect, far from it. He's trying to change the constitution to allow him to rule indefinitely. That cannot be tolerated. Enough with the politics and back to the movie; The pace is breath taking at moments, and deeply philosophical at others. It portrays Chavez as a popular hero unafraid to challenge the US hegemony and domination of the world's resources. If you think the author is biased in favour of Chavez, nothing's stopping you from doing your homework. One crucial message of the film is questioning info sources, as was clearly demonstrated by the snippers casualties being shamefully blamed on Chavez's supporters. Venezuela puts American alleged democracy to shame. Hasta la revolucion siempre!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A good film with strong performances (especially the two leads). The film is about two American girls who are caught with 6 kilo's heroin on an airport in Thailand. They're both thrown in prison and one of them signs a confession. Bill Pullman plays the lawyer who tries to get them out. All they have to do is find a Nick Parks who put the narcotics in the bag of one of the two girls. So far for the story which isn't that original (it has many resemblances with the better Return to Paradise).

The acting and Newton Thomas Sigel's beautiful photography make this film worth to watch. A 7 out of 10.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.

Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.

I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.

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

Answer: Hey if you have a little over an hour to kill and find paint to be too exciting I'd suggest it. If thou you happen to like cheap b-movies like me it's good for a giggle! Other than that I wouldn't suggest that you rent it, I'd wait till it comes on the tube say round 4 am on the free access channel of your cable/satellite supplier. The band that did this sound track by the way was on the road after for about two years after this flick, and no they sounded just as bad live according to the two small town reviews I could find on them. So once again good if you find grass growing to much fun but good to watch if you like to see how NOT to shoot a low budget movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Probably the best film of the year for me. This small French film centers on put upon office secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) who spends her days doing other men's jobs, uncredited, and being the source of their scorn and lunchtime conversation which is all too clear to her as, being partially deaf, she reads lips. A change is set in motion when she hires newly paroled con Paul (Vincent Cassel) as her assistant. The relationship which develops between them is the centre of the film. Mutual dependency, for vastly different reasons, bonds them. Carla becomes attracted to Paul and to the fact that he makes her feel attractive for,what seems like,the first time. Paul does nothing to dispel her feelings because he needs her help. He owes money to a local gangster and forms a plan to steal from him which will involve Carlas' skill of reading lips. I think the main thing that pushes the film way above an average suspense/drama is the amazing chemistry between the two stars. Throughout the whole film, no matter what other characters are on screen, you can feel this amazing bond between Carla and Paul. I cannot remember when I have witnessed such sexual chemistry between two actors. Emmanuell Devos gives a brilliant performance (she won the French Cesar for best actress). You never feel like you are watching a piece of acting, this really is Carla. The chameleon like Vincent Cassel is also wonderful. He makes a somewhat unappealing character both appealing and attractive. I loved this film because of these two people, and both times when I had finished watching it I wanted to go back into the cinema and become involved with them all over again.