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

Answer: This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.

When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.

One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...

It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.

The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.

I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.

(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbe who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and "Whoopee" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, "cool" music blah blah blah

Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the "who will die next" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...

Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...

Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...

Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: 102 Dalmatians (2000, Dir. Kevin Lima)

Believed to be cured, Cruella de Vil (Close) is released from prison and sets out to make a new start in life. Things are going well for Cruella who is busy helping homeless dogs off the street. When the clock strikes on Big Ben, things turn bad. The hypnotic cure is reversed and Cruella is back, and this time she is determined to make that spotted coat she always wanted.

Glenn Close reprises her role as Cruella de Vil and once again is the highlight of the film. Every scene with her in is worth watching in this dull sequel, which feels more of a repeat of the previous film, rather than a new story.

She's Changed. Ken Sheperd (Ioan Gruffudd)
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.

In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.

Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all "ambushees") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan "No, it's not" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.

But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).

It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way..