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

Answer: I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.

If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.

The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?

THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliche left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.

After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...

THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...

THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?

I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first!

There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.

My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.

Try them both.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture

was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain.

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

Answer: This is a movie that plays to everyone's emotions. We all want a second chance at things. Jim Morris got one, followed his heart and got a chance to live his dream. What a great message and what a great delivery by this movie.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.

The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.