An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "Godzilla vs King Ghidorah" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about "Japan is great" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The absolute summum of the oeuvre of that crafty Dane Douglas Sirk (born Detlef Sierck), Written on the Wind compels our prurient attention in every gaudy frame. From its justly famous opening sequence, with the leaves blowing into the baronial foyer of a Texas mansion and the wind riffling the pages of the calendar into a flashback, the movie compresses into its 99 minutes all the familial intrigue that was to fuel such later, little-screen knockoffs as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest over their years-long runs.

The combination of wealth and dysfunction is a theme Americans, in our dollar-based society, find irresistible. Brother and sister Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are the spoiled, troubled heirs to the Hadly oil fortune; boyhood chum Rock Hudson and new bride Lauren Bacall are the sane outsiders who try to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron. (It's been rumored that the story was based on Libby Holmann's marriage into Reynolds tobacco money.) As always, the misfits get all the scenery to chew -- and the best lines to spit out (Malone, in her Oscar-nabbing performance as the boozing nymphomaniac with a jones for Hudson, gets to detonate a whole fireworks display of them). Hudson, while good, can't compete with all this over-the-top emoting; Bacall starts out strong but grows recessive, a mere plot convenience. No matter; with a succession of set-pieces shot in extravagant hues, Sirk gives an object lesson in how to turn out overwrought melodrama set in the lush consumer paradise of late-50s America. Nobody ever did it better.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.

I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.

When I realized this was supposed to be an "epic" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.

Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear "Che" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of "Lawrence" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.

Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.

He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.

Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.

Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: BABY FACE is a fast paced, wise cracking, knowing smirk of a film that

lasts only an hour and 15 minutes, but oh what a smart 75 minutes they

are! That a story that covers so much ground could be told in such a

short time puts most of today's movie makers to shame. Screenwriters of

today should study the economy of BABY FACE and cut the bloat that

overwhelms so many of their films.

The story is no nonsense. An amoral woman rises to wealth first under,

and then over the bodies of the men who fall madly in love with her.

Sure the production code loused it up with a redeeming, happy ending,

but it isn't hard to see in which the direction the writers wanted to

go, so enjoy what's there and use your imagination for the rest. Stanwyck is terrific as is George Brent and Douglass Dumbvrille as a

hapless suitor. Not a great film but certainly an enjoyable one. If

you've never seen BABY FACE catch it the next time it's shown on cable

or rent the cassette. It's worth the effort..
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
It seems there's a bit of a curse out there when it comes to gay cinema. Namely, happy endings aren't very common. Beautiful Thing excluded, gay films tend to end in broken relationships or untimely death. And some, like Come Undone, just end... period.

The creators of this horrid piece of nonsense have a thing or two to learn about plot, direction, and timelines. Within the first ten minutes of this film, I found myself a bit confused, and even more so after the first glimpse of Jeremie Elkaim's character having a little psych session. It seems this film was randomly pieced together without the slightest attempt at continuity or consistency. There's no real way to tell when you're viewing the present or some sort of ethereal flashback. I could only take so much before it became truly unappealing.

Stephen Holden of The New York Times called this film "...shimmeringly beautiful and utterly real." Well, it seems that Stephen invested in beer goggles prior to viewing, as this is truly far from beautiful. Due to all the praise this film received, I expected something worth watching. Sadly, the film lived down to its title. And by the end of the movie (which provided no resolution whatsoever, I might add) it's plain to see that the writers, the director and the film have all Come Undone.