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

A: Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.

So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.

However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.

The main actors Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...

Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.

The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.

The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I though this would be an okay movie, since i like zombies and horror movies in general. But i did not think it would be such a piece of sh!t like it was. The only zombie in the movie is at the beginning and he gets ran over by a god damn car!!! The movie looks to be written by a porn director and filled by porn actors, i wouldn't ever call them actors! The costumes seems to be stolen from a local school play. Its seems like a road movie with almost no monsters. There is no fun at all in this piece of sh!t, only horror, but not in the way the director intended. I would rather be raped by a pedophile than see this movie ever again!!! ugh!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of "Alfie"?

This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like "The Island", and "Blame it on Rio".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.

With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.

I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.

The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.

The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.

The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.

It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.

The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.

A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.

I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.