Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!

If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...

If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: There is not a speck of entertainment in this entire film. There's not one scary, funny, or even interesting scene in this film. It advertises itself as a horror, then goes on to call itself a comedy. It doesn't even ATTEMPT humor. Neither does it attempt to be scary.

In order to not be bored by this film, you would have to be one of the most easily entertained people on earth. If you like this movie even a LITTLE BIT than you have no standard for what you watch at all. I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with this. Its not funny, scary, shocking, or intriguing. So was it supposed to be a drama? Because it really wasn't dramatic either.

Please just do yourself a favor and don't watch this film. Life is too precious to be wasting 90 minutes of it watching this.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.

Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".

Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.

Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"

O.K. Bye.

P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When the US entered World War I, the government forced Hollywood to churn out propaganda films. THE LITTLE American is probably the best of the lot because it stars Mary Pickford.

Pickford plays a young woman torn between two men: Jack Holt (German) and Raymond Hatton (French), but her decision is delayed because of the war as both men enlist.

When the ship Pickford is sailing on is sunk by the Germans (think Lusitania) because it is carrying munitions, Pickford has a great scene as she stands on the lifeboat and yells at the German commander. Later on, of course, she runs into both Holt and Hatton when she is being held as a war prisoner at a chateau.

Director Cecil B. DeMille provides one truly great scene in this film as Pickford and Holt are wandering through a bombed-out village. They pass a destroyed church of which only one wall remains standing. Against the wall is a very large crucifix. As they stand and watch, the wall collapses but the Jesus figure remains, suspended in mid air. It's a very surreal moment in a film that is otherwise very straightforward and un-artsy.

Pickford is, as always, a pleasure to watch. She was always a very natural actress who avoided the arm-waving histrionics many other actors of the day used. She's also very very pretty. Holt is very good here in a leading-man role. Hatton is OK. Among the list of name actors in "extra" parts are Wallace Beery, Ramon Novarro, Colleen Moore, Ben Alexander, Hobart Bosworth, Norman Kerry, Walter Long, James Neill, and Edythe Chapman.

Not a great film, but interesting to see US propaganda at work.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:

1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.

2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays.

3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.

4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.

Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.

Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.

This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).

As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else!