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

Answer: I really enjoyed this -- I'm a big fan of movies that mess with your mind and leave you with a lot of questions and ideas to debate, and this was a stellar example. But then, Terry Gilliam is always good at that (well, almost always. Let's just forget about Jabberwocky and The Brothers Grimm, shall we?).

I particularly liked the way it handled the time travel theme and the avoidance of paradoxes -- the way events in the past and future intertwined and fed into each other.

It was also really well done aesthetically -- the art direction was really great, and I wish I'd been able to see it on the big screen. The future scenes had a similar feel to Brazil in a lot of ways, and even the present scenes were often really visually compelling.

But perhaps the most striking thing about it was that it featured two actors I normally don't much like, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, and they both delivered amazing performances here. Pitt especially -- I'd seen one or two films before that made me realize he could in fact actually act (contrary to what I'd originally thought), but this one really outdid them. I actually found myself asking my friends at one point "Are you SURE that's Brad Pitt?" This is probably the most memorable performance of his career (though admittedly that may not be saying too much).
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I don't know who Sue Kramer, the director of this film is, but I have a strong suspicion that A) she is a lesbian and B) she somehow shamed everyone involved in this project to participate to prove they are not homophobic.

I can imagine everyone thinking, "My God, this is horrible. Not funny. Pedestrian. Totally lame." But keeping their mouths shut for fear they will be labeled anti-gay or they "don't get" the gay lifestyle. (This is probably why Kramer did NOT cast gay people to play gay people too.) Anyway, it's not even worth reviewing. The actors are all directed to play every scene completely over the top so there is no sincerity or believability in anything they do. It's full of cliches and there is nothing about this movie that is the least bit amusing - much less funny.

I hated it and I'm not afraid to say so. Too bad the gutless people who gave Kramer the money to make this bomb weren't as unbiased in their judgment.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I loves this movie,because it showed that they were not killing for fun but to save the ones they loved! Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom did a great job portraying Ned and Joe. It has a few quick inappropriate scenes but is all right other than that. The language is very mild and sometimes don't even know it is there. This movie shows that just because they are outlaws does not mean that they are vicious killers! I hope that people will watch this movie and learn about important times in history like this one. There is one thing that fascinates me about this movie is that they got their inspiration for their armor from a book Ned looked at! Also that that is how people remember them,from their armor. I hope that people will watch this movie and get interested as I have.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen-- it has everything-- a genuinely touching screenplay, fine actors that make subtlety a beautiful art to watch, an actually elegant romance (it's a shame that that kind of romance just doesn't seem to exist anymore), lovely songs and lyrics (especially the final song), an artistic score, and costumes and sets that make you want to live in them. The ending was only a disappointment in that I was expecting a spectacular film to have a brilliant end-- but it was still more wonderful then the vast majority of movies out there. Definitely check this movie out-- over and over again. There are many details you miss the first time that deserve a second look.