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

Answer: I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with cliches and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.

Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).

The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.

Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.

However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).

Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I didn't have many expectation going into the film, but I thought it was fantastic. Pierce Brosnan is outstanding in a very different role. He has dumped the slick armani suits for a ridiculous look and pays off showing that he is an excellent actor. Pierce and Greg Kinnear play off each other great, and make for one of the better buddy pairings in a long time. The humor is dark, the performances by Brosnan, Kinnear, and Hope Davis are great, mix that with a touching element to the story about friendship, and you have a great film. This is probably one of the better buddy comedies in a long time. This is a film that definitely shows that we can expect great things in the post-Bond era of Brosnan's career.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: An extra is called upon to play a general in a movie about the Russian Revolution. However, he is not any ordinary extra. He is Serguis Alexander, former commanding general of the Russia armies who is now being forced to relive the same scene, which he suffered professional and personal tragedy in, to satisfy the director who was once a revolutionist in Russia and was humiliated by Alexander. It can now be the time for this broken man to finally "win" his penultimate battle. This is one powerful movie with meticulous direction by Von Sternberg, providing the greatest irony in Alexander's character in every way he can. Jannings deserved his Oscar for the role with a very moving performance playing the general at his peak and at his deepest valley. Powell lends a sinister support as the revenge minded director and Brent is perfect in her role with her face and movements showing so much expression as Jannings' love. All around brilliance. Rating, 10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing.

I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This movie rivals "Plan 9" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:

1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem.

Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!

I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either.