Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The last (I believe) of the movies The Boys made with Hal Roach, this is also the last truly funny film they made, before going to 20th century fox, which so famously misued their talents. Although there are weak moments - the business with the "lung tester", for instance, is a bit, ah ... overblown (but worth having, just to see "Dr." Jimmy Finlayson) - but on the whole this flick is a good summary of what the boys brought to the screen. Richard Cramer (uncredited) appeared in other L&H flicks, and he is delightfully threatening here as the convict Nick Granger. The scene where The Boys have to eat their own synthetic meal ("Looks good, smells good, and it probably tastes good. Eat it.") is one of my favorite moments in the oeuvre. Stan & Ollie will always be pleasant companions in the lives of their millions of devoted fans.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I always feel strange and guilty saying it (because I'm a fairly well-educated non-teenager), but I actually sort of like the Olsen twins, and I respect the movies they make, even though I've never really been their target audience. "When in Rome" was a traditional Mary-Kate and Ashley movie, complete with the foreign travel, accents, motorbikes, adult romance as a "B" storyline, fashion orientation, and even the gag reel over the credits. I enjoyed myself. "When in Rome" and the other Olsen twin movies never pretend to be anything they're not; most of the time, they only premiere on video, and they never claim to be the next "Citizen Kane" or even "An Affair to Remember." My point is, people who watch this movie and expect it to be anything other than another Olsen twin movie will be disappointed.

That said, those who ARE fans of the Olsen twins will really enjoy themselves. For those of us who've watched them since the first episodes of "Full House," it's really great to see them growing into more mature roles. This movie provides important historical and geographical information, just like many of their other movies (remember 10 Downing Street from "Winning London" and the visit to the Louvre from "Passport to Paris"?) as well as providing good, clean fun that can be enjoyed by the whole family.

As long as I still feel like I'm on my soapbox, and as long as I can make it relevant to the movie, let me take a moment to challenge those who reject the Olsen twins: in order to be a fan of the Olsen twins, you don't have to be some pre-teen "valley girl" from California. In fact, that's not really the target audience. If it were, the MK&A fashion line of clothes and accessories would be run through Gap or some store like that, not Wal-Mart. "When in Rome," while it does feature "high fashion" and globe-trotting and two girls from a valley in Cali, isn't really ABOUT that... it's more about inspiring young girls who have initiative to let it take them places. If that means setting the movie in some glamorous foreign city with cute guys on motorbikes, so be it. That's called marketing--you take an idea and sell it by making it appealing. At least they're sending a good message, even if the means seem a little superficial.

Basically, don't knock the film until you've seen it, and then don't knock it until you've tried to understand what the Olsen twins do: they encourage young girls to be creative, intuitive, and driven young women. This movie does that, I think, just like their others. Kids - enjoy. Parents - do the same. If you like the Olsen twins, you won't be disappointed.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.

The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.

All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.

These type of films often deserve a cult following:

8/10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star "decent" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

This genre has been more successfully handled by "Nobody's Fool" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) "About Schmidt." I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.

I'll give it an "A" for effort.