Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: When I read the summary of the movie, something like what happens when a man gets powers of a God, and how he later learns that having supernatural powers requires giant responsibility and strength, I though that was clever and original concept. Casting was promising too, Carrey, Freeman, Aniston... How can movie with a good idea and good actors, not to mention costs of filming, can be bad? It can. Idea is good, but script and story itself is terrible. Bruce Nolan is, let's be honest, a pretty mediocre journalist, with not exactly great stories (like a story of a giant cookie, what a faux pas, and the Niagara report is complete fiasco!), he's a man with a job he completely DESERVES (he's not a good journalist, he's a comedian), considering his potentials, with a nice home, sugar sweet girlfriend, and OH HORROR!!!! Dog who is not house trained!!! Yes, as soon as Bruce, at the beginning of the movie starts addressing GOd in a "God, why do you hate me!" manner, average viewer must think: "Why, what's wrong with your life, Bruce?". Bruce is not, and definitely NOT the man with real problems in life. Most the troubles that happen to him are minor and not really worth of all that fuss he makes, and some of them are really only the result of his stupidity. Most people have really big problems, worth of attention, most people are more worth of attention that Bruce, who doesn't seem too human after all, doesn't look even realistic, too goofy and neurotic, but God still addresses to him. Why? Though Morgan Freeman looks nice as a God, I can't help but to ask what is he doing in this particularly bad movie. And what does Bruce do when God gives him his powers? God in this movie could as easily give his powers to a 5 year old kid and there hardly would be any difference. No, wait, a smart kid would probably use his God powers better than Bruce. What does Bruce do? Pulls the moon closer to earth to create romantic atmosphere, parts the red soup, lifts up a pretty woman's dress on the street, answers prayers via e-mail and make all of them come true!!!! No more, Bruce, please! What Bruce did could actually end the world, but in the movie, that doesn't happen, because this is "nice, family, little movie" and doesn't make any sense at all!!! Not a hint of sarcasm, of real humor, of wittiness, of some dirty humor at least!!! Nothing. Just Carrey playing silly, which is starting to look pathetic on middle aged actor. Aniston here is understated. She plays pale, undeveloped character of Bruce's girlfriend Grace, and stays completely forgettable in this movie. Nobody in the right mind would believe that this two have any chemistry at all between them. When Grace says prayer for Bruce it sounds not only lame and pathetic, but completely false. These two are not meant to be together. I would give three stars, but I doubt movie deserves a one. Bad script, lame dialogs, lack of real humor, wittiness and any sophistication, as well as undeveloped characters and understated Freeman's and Aniston's roles, total lack of boldness and sarcasm, it all makes movie hardly worth ***. But OK, there were few funny moments, and Freeman is always nice to see in any movie so, lets leave three stars.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I just saw this at the 2006 Vancouver international film festival. The synopsis in the festival guide sounded pretty good so we decided to check this one out. I'm sorry to say I was very disappointed.

Besides being poorly written, it was boring. I won't take away from the actors as there is not much they could do with this bad script.

First bite was cliche without being ironic, over the top seriousness without being funny. The movie would have been better had Hunt Hoe went with a campy horror feel. Instead he took himself to seriously and this resulted with a boring film. I can't recommend this film. It felt too long and all in all just plain weak.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.

NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:

Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliche. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters 'crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as 'Friends' (yes that show on TV).

Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.

How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: this is just usual Indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema, as Indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry, however it also the worst.

how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at Russia, Iran, china and Latin America, look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like Kisna!!

get real people, no wonder the international community in general laughs at Indian cinema.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.