Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: According to John Ford's lyrically shot, fictional biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life his greatest faults may have been an obtuseness with woman and an ability to dance in "the worst way." Ford's camera has only praising views to reveal of Mr. Lincoln's early life. But for what the film lacks in character complexities it makes up for in beauty and depth of vision. Uncharacteristically beautiful compositions of early film, what could have been a series of gorgeous still frames, Ford has a unique eye for telling a story. The film sings of the life of a hopeful young man. Henry Fonda plays the contemplative and spontaneously clever Lincoln to a tee, one of his best roles.

The film concerns two young men, brothers, on trial for a murder that both claim to have committed. In classic angry mob style, the town decides to take justice into their own hands and lynch the pair of them, until honest Abe steps into the fray. He charms them with his humor, telling them not to rob him of his first big case, and that they are as good as lynched with him as the boys lawyer. What follows seems to become the outline for all courtroom- murder-dramas thereafter, as Abe cunningly interrogates witnesses to the delight and humor of the judge, jury and town before he stumbles upon the missing links.

The film plays out like many John Ford movies do: a tablespoon of Americana, a dash of moderate predictability, a hint of sarcasm that you aren't sure if you put in the recipe or if Ford did it himself. Despite the overtly 'Hollywood' feel of the film, and overly patriotic banter alluding to Lincoln's future presidency, the film is entirely enjoyable and enjoyably well constructed, if you can take your drama with a grain of salt.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.

The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd.

Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).

Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The film starts out very slowly, with the lifestyle of Wallace Napalm, an attendant at a photo-service drop-off station. His wife has been restricted to her home with an ankle bracelet as the result of a sentence for arson. Wallace is a member of the volunteer fire department, and takes firefighting seriously.

As we watch Wallace's rather dull life proceeding, suddenly there comes something new and jarring: a traveling carnival comes to town. One of its stars is Wilder Napalm, Wallace's brother. He's a clown, but he has a special talent.

So does Wallace. They're both pyrokineticists or "pyrotics," people capable of starting fires through mental energy. Wallace keeps his powers secret; Wilder lets his acquaintances know what he can do.

Spoiler: Some of their differences go back to a childhood incident where they inadvertently caused the death of a vagrant. Wallace holds back from using his powers; Wilder wants to go public on national TV.

Complicating the matter, Wilder wants Wallace's wife, whom they both dated years earlier. She becomes a bone of contention, and becomes one of the reason that the brothers finally have a literal firefight.

The film is entertaining, but not laugh-out-loud funny. I think enough of it to have a copy in my library. It's a good offbeat film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Offbeat, slow-paced, entertaining erotic thriller with many graphic and "blasphemous" scenes that will undoubtedly disturb some viewers. However, it'll be hard even for them not to appreciate the several imaginative sequences this film contains, or to ignore Krabbe's first-rate performance. Verhoeven maintains an intriguing ambivalence throughout the film, playing with the meaning of the hero's visions-omens. Unfortunately, in the last 5 minutes everything turns into a blur, and the unsatisfying ending is certainly not as good as the rest of the movie. (***)