Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.

Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.

Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This has to be the most brutally unfunny "comedy" I've ever seen in my life. Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Christopher Walken as a crazed homeless man CAN'T make me laugh? Something's got to be wrong with this picture. This is the only movie I've ever felt like walking out of. I used free passes, and still felt like I wanted my money back. I can wholeheartedly say that the only movie I've ever seen worse than this one was HOUSE OF THE DEAD. The. ONLY. worse. movie. I laughed very slightly at the merry-go-round scene, and that's it. Spending 2 hours in something billed as a comedy should get you more than one laugh, right? I don't know, I guess the filmmakers thought that "flan" was a funny word, or something. And the other running joke really is beating a dead horse--literally.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What a crime...

You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.

But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..

Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.

Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history especially since the promise of its tag-line, "The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time", isn't even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek's previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.

Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane's obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O'Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film's second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D'Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).

When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek's seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.

The film's utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven't watched myself yet) a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O'Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticipated but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek's clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
"Panic in the Streets" is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as "A Streetcar Named Desire", "On the Waterfront" and "East of Eden". Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still "Panic in the Streets" is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.

The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.

The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.

Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.

Yet, "Panic in the Streets" remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.

8/10