Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Martin Sheen, Michelle Phillips, Stuart Margolin and the late Vic Morrow are the human stars of this movie about a young man looking for answers about his brother's death. Mr. Sheen, Mr. Margolin and Mr. Morrow all turn in first rate performances in their respective roles; Ms. Phillips has the slightly less than enviable task of trying to spice up a made-for-TV movie (twenty-five years ago), by supplying the "sex interest" in an otherwise sexless film. The real star, however, is the "California Kid"; a 1934 Ford coupe, borrowed from "Jake" Jacobs, put before a camera and given a workout that'll leave the viewer panting, gasping and holding the edge of the seat with breathless anticipation.

The action scenes are spectacular, (although some of the dialog is a bit lame) making for a fine evening's diversion. This is how all "car movies" should be made.

Try to catch this one on the late movie channel; it's well worth the missed sleep.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film is a joke and Quinton should be ashamed of himself, trying to pass this off as a Modesty Blaise Film. If you are having trouble sleeping then all means rent this film. The stick figure they call a actress who is suppose to be Modesty Blaise has got to be the most boring person on this planet. Maybe she could be used as a hat stand in the back ground of a real film.seventy-five minutes of nothing thank you who ever invented the fast forward button. If you see this film if you can call it that coming your way RUN. I can't help but think what 3rd world country could of used the money wasted of this crap. this film is boring the actors are boring waste of colour a waste air they breath If you would like to see Mostey Blaise Film then watch the one they made in the 60's maybe that what the director should of done.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.

All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is a real gem. The arc of the the plot is defined in the first 3 minutes, the characters are sympathetic and clearly drawn, their motives completely believable. The dialogue is fresh, and oh so real. The situations are unique to the characters and not at all cliched or hackneyed. Until the climax, that is. Then it's as if the movie went off the rails a bit and it got a bit hokey and unbelievable. But I don't want to discourage people from watching this film. The first 3/4's of it are truly remarkable. I gave it an 8. There are some remarkable performances here. Check out this movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I love this show. Now, I'm not a big fan of many science fiction shows, so if it bares any resemblance to them, I didn't notice. I like the storybook quality of the cinematography. I even like the love story, even though as I am enjoying it I wonder in the back of my mind how the heck that part of the story can truly develop seeing as Ned cannot touch Chuck or else... well, you know. I even like Chuck, I don't find her annoying at all, and I generally hate overly sweet, nice, perfect characters. I even like the narrator's voice, even if it bothers one of my family members and bares some resemblance to some Walgreens commercials. I could nitpick about all the other things about Ned's predicament and how the writers are going to address it in the future but I just rather watch and wait and see what tale the writers weave.