Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Christ. A sequel to one of the most cloying films of all time, this at least has the decency to leave out the songs (bar a reprise of the unbearable "Tomorrow") but does continue the tradition of being nauseating and unfunny. This time, Annie and her friends head off to London and get caught up in Joan Collins's plot to blow up Buckingham Palace or some such shite. The movie has a bizarrely sycophantic attitude towards its eponymous character at odds with how irritating she is: every time the little bugger squeals "Leapin' lizards!" I could feel my teeth grinding themselves down into powder. Drearily photographed, slushy and plodding, the movie has only one memorable line ("Unhand me, you stupid genius!") and the fact that it's not the original to recommend it.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When I saw the Dentist, I thought it was very cool. But this movie is not for everyone, especially people who do not like gory scenes as the Dentist has lots of gory scenes. That's why it has it's R18 rating. It's about a beverly hills dentist Dr Alan Feinstone, who finds his wife Brooke cheating on him with the poolman. It's best to go to your dentist "before" you watch this. But if you don't like going to the dentist already, then it's best not to watch this as you may be put off going for life. the Dentist has the best bloody revenge in it that I've ever seen. Who has ever seen a movie that has a dentist (Spoiler) pull out all his cheating wife's teeth and cut out her tongue with no anesthetic? Overall awesome flick, but not for everyone.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I was 16 when I first saw the movie, and it has always been a HUGE favorite of mine. Of course, you can't deny the appeal of Kristofferson in the movie - HOW FINE IS THAT MAN???????????? Sheesh. He still is. He's the bad boy every woman secretly wants. His acting is flawless. He played a drunk/druggie only the way someone who really had gone through it could - and he had - in '76 he finally got on the wagon, so it was all very real.

The music is GREAT and even though in later years I thought Streisand was somewhat not the right person for him in a physical beauty sense, I think it's more a problem for male viewers than female. Us gals are just looking at Kris - and naturally the guys are looking at the female interest - my husband cannot watch the movie b/c of her - he doesn't like her looks. But I did make him sit through just the red Ferrari scene on the road towards the end just so he could see how well done it was - the camera work was so perfect and you were totally in the car with him with the music blasting - you should have seen it on my 50" plasma - WOW!!!! And lastly, the transfer quality was GREAT - anamorphic widescreen and really clear with great color and very low noise except for dark areas which is normal for all film.

Brought back some great memories of my mom and I loving this movie together, I bought a copy for her for Christmas. Would have loved to watch it together with her last night.

I have tried to sit through the original with Judy Garland, but I guess seeing this one first, I just can't get into the earlier era. Watching all the concert footage in the '76 version was so much like what I was living at the time.

I am working my way through the commentary by Streisand, but she seems to only talk about herself and the songs, so far she has barely even mentioned Kris or details about scenes in the movie. Her voice sounds EXACTLY the same now as then.

Check it out, if you grew up in the same era as me (born in 1960) you will love it.

Wendy
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.

The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.

Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".

If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.