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

Answer: I was entranced by this touching and hilarious film, not to mention surprised. I was also surprised to find that the voice of Paulie was performed by Jay Mohr. The performance was so finely nuanced, neither wavering into schmaltz nor becoming too hard under the New Jersey swagger, that I thought that this must be some unsung old pro, not the baby-faced Mr. Mohr. A very impressive performance, indeed, and it's gratifying to see his talents being taken seriously in a string of quirky, indie films.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: One of my favorite movies, with a very nostalgic ending. The movie is about the Sullivan family, obviously Michael Sullivan (the father) is one of the main members of the mafia, the killer to say it this way, and an expert one. One of the kids wants to know the work of his father (a terrible mistake), so he hides on his father's car and well, he sees Tom Hanks in action to say it this way.

Mafia doesn't rules, in Mafia nobody wins, when they want you out, they take you out. Of course you can see anyone who works at the mafia with a giant house, the best car in the world, whatever you like, but make a wrong work, or make something your "boss" doesn't want, and you're fired, and killed.

You can see what I mean in the movie, Sullivan Jr. sees something he didn't had to see, and well, almost all his family gets killed for that "wrong thing" his son did. The movie is really entertaining, you see how the Sullivan's live after being chased by the mafia, or kinda of that.

This movie is kinda of sad, shows us about revenge, those dirty works people do, almost everything you like. Hopefully the guy is reading this comment doesn't works for the mafia, and if you work at the mafia make yourself a favor and get the hell out of the country before you get killed by your boss and their workers.

This movie receives: 10/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.

Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.

Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.

This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It is often only after years pass that we can look back and see those stars who are truly stars. As that French film critic, whose name escapes me, said: "There is no Garbo. There is no Dietrich. There is only Louise Brooks"; and there is, thank heavens! Louise Brooks! This is the third of her European masterpieces. But it is also an exceptional film for being one, if not the, first French talkie, for following a script written by famed Rene Clair, for reportedly being finished (the direction, that is) by Georg Pabst, and for incorporating the voice of Edith Piaf before she was well known! So much talent working on and in a film, how couldn't it turn out to be a masterpiece?! And that's what this film is. It's a shame Louise Brooks was blackballed by Hollywood when she came back to the States--so much talent cast so arrogantly by the wayside! In the film, in addition to getting to watch Louise Brooks in action, it's great to see pictures of Paris ca. 1930 and to hear Piaf's young voice. I never get tired of this film!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Since Douglas MacArthur affected more human livesfor the betterthan any other American not elected President, he deserved a better film biography. Not that Universal's "MacArthur" is bad. It's just not all it should have been.

Oddly enough, the potential was there. From the very early "Star Trek" episode "The Corbomite Maneuver" (1966) to the recent HBO films "Something the Lord Made" (2OO4) and "Warm Springs" (2OO5), director Joseph Sargent has emerged as one of the most expressively human directors in film, a man capable of subtly shaping the emotional shadings of his actors' performances, and carrying the audience exactly where he wants them to go. The producer, Frank McCarthy, also gave us "Patton" (197O), the legendary Jerry Goldsmith scored both films, and Universal widely touted the fact that the film was "four years in preparation and production." Yet for all of this, "MacArthur" is perfectly adequateand not much more than that.

The film begins in early 1942, shortly before the beleaguered general was orderedby President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy)to flee the Philippines to avoid capture by the Japanese. Thus, this film omits:

MacArthur's birth in 188O in a frontier barracks in Arkansas still subject to attack by Native American tribesmenthus establishing that his remarkable life spanned the distance from bows-and-arrows to thermonuclear weapons;

his graduation from West Pointfirst in a class of 95,

how he joined his famous father, General Arthur MacArthur (who had earned the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge in the Civil War) on assignments in Japan, China and, most importantly, in the Philippines;

his heroic exploits in the 1914 excursion into Vera Cruz;

how he leaped about the trenches of World War One like a mountain goat, often wounded, and promoted with blinding speed to Brigadier General;

his postwar service as West Point's youngestand most progressivecommandant;

his participation in the court-martial of Billy Mitchell in 1924;

his routing of the Bonus Marchers in 1932;

his efforts to sustain a woefully-underfunded Army as Chief of Staff in the early 193O's;

his retirement from the U.S. Army to become Field Marshal (!) of the Army of the Philippines;

and the reactivation of his commission by FDR shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.

All this is omitted in favor of prolonged footage of MacArthur trying to fight off seasickness while being evacuated by PT boatthus, we know that "General Mac" is a legend, but not why; nor can we appreciate why the allegations of cowardice were so wounding to "Dugout Doug"and so patently unfounded.

The remainder of his career is presently straightforwardly: His island-hopping "Hit 'em where they ain't" campaign, the fulfillment of his pledge to the Filipinos "I shall return!"his crowning achievement, the winning of the peace in postwar Japan, then the difference of opinion with President Harry Truman (a properly feisty Ed Flanders) over the conduct of the Korean conflict which resulted in his outright firing, and finally, his proclamation to Congress that "old soldierssimply fade away," after which he did just that. All quite historically accurate, and all presented with a very deliberate lack of commentary.

Sargent and the producers almost painfully distance themselves from adorning the historical record with their own approval or disapproval: If MacArthur's actions appear noble, let them be presented as such; if they appear egotistical or bombastic, let those conceptions register sans comment. Since Joe Sargent is quite expert at subtly manipulating his audience's reactionsagain, see Warm Springsthis refusal to offer comment appears quite intentional. Historically, that may be commendable, but it almost defeats the efforts of the viewer to place this extraordinary man in any kind of rational perspective.

And finally, there is a sort of "made on the cheap" feel to the film, as there is to "Midway," released about the same time. Both films were relegated to "television" directors--Sargent in this case, Jack Smight on "Midway," and both have a made-for-TV-look. Even Jerry Goldsmith's march, while perfectly serviceable, lack the subtle undertones and the grandeur of his "Patton" theme--just another way in which a larger-than-life man is memorialized by a very ordinary film.

There was vanity and pettiness in this man, inarguably; there was also greatnessand love him or loathe him, one must acknowledge the fact that MacArthur did what no military commander before him had done: he won the peace.

In the end, "MacArthur"like so many film biographiesis a good place to begin research into this remarkable man, but a poor place to end it.