Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths.

The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain ole' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about "Hood of the Living Dead" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: 1st watched 8/29/2009 - 7 out of 10 (Dir-Sidney Franklin): Well told account of farmers in China and their rise to prominence and struggles with what Mother nature throws at them. This movie is based on an award winning novel and chronicles a family starting with the son's arranged marriage to a slave girl. The movie does a good job of keeping your interest despite a somewhat hammy performance by the lead played by Paul Muni. It chronicles , Wong Long(the character played by Muni) and how he works the land, buys more land, eventually becomes very rich but then returns to the land where he originally started. The relationship between him and his wife, played by Luise Rainer, is the main thread of the story(besides the land itself) and despite the obvious non-Chinese actors it does a pretty good job of displaying the country and it's people. It's obvious that MGM used it's money to create a really good epic with this one in an era where they could probably afford it. The scene with the locusts is done exceedingly well and the rest of th movie really looks good warranting the Best Cinematography award at the Oscars in that year. The definitive definition of an epic is what this story is and it's pulled off pretty well.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?