Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.

Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.

The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.

The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: If you still remember that summer when you had your first kiss, first boy/girlfriend, or first puppy love fling...this film is for you! OK so this movie would and will never win an Oscar BUT as a Dominican I loved it...there are some things in the movie that might just go right over your head if you are not part of the culture...the kids being raised by a grandma who's both mother and father, the youngest son being babied and bathed with a Cafe Bustelo tin (sooo Dominican!), Judy being harassed by the neighborhood men, going to church and lighting a prayer candle...the film's brilliance was in those small details. Granted, it was not a pull out all the works cinematic extravaganza but it wasn't meant to be NOR was it meant to be an educational tool for those wanting to learn about Latin culture ( tip: make new friends instead). More of a bitter-sweet, faux-cumentery, this film kept it real without taking itself too seriously. As in the tradition of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" this was simply one boy's coming of age tale. I recommend it (especialmente si eres Dominicano!) =o)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.

Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.

Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Let's be honest. As a film school project, made without budget and "real" actors, this is a passably interesting film. As something to be released on DVD for an innocent viewer, it's a very poorly produced product. If I would be idly changing channels and happened to catch this film accidentally, it would probably arrest my eye and attention for a while. As a person who bought this DVD under the impression that I would be getting a proper cinematic product, i.e. a film, I feel deeply disappointed. It's a videotaped TV play, something along the line of old sixties serials, but without that certain charm. Aside from the leading man Mr Redfield (who also is the director), the other actors seem to be either chaps from the campus (a bit too old for that actually), or members of the director's household, who appear before the camera without any help from not only the acting couches, but also the make-up artist or hairdresser (a bonnet over outgrown permanent bangs or a top hat over mullet is a very long way from creating 1840s). It's all shot using a motionless mounted camera in a small, bare studio, sometimes using blue screen for outdoors backgrounds. Synthesizer generated uninspired score of lame "period" inspired romantic karaoke insults the viewers ears on more than one occasion. The film attempts to be "dreamlike", whereas in fact it's merely conceptionless collage of those shots that made it to the editing (and believe me, the standards weren't too high to start with). There are interesting dialogs every now and then, but overall it's pretty lame and two-dimensional production in more than one way with no flashes of genius from either the director or any members of the crew. That's how "artsy" films attempted to look in the 80s. Mr Redfield does a much better job as an actor than the director.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Bill and Ted's bogus journey is possible the most excellent film I have ever watched. Though the acting and scenery etc is poor, who cares. The story line is brilliant and the jokes and words they come up with are most excellent, the ideas are great as well. I recommend anyone to see this classic. The best part is obviously when they 'melvin' death, i was cracking up for 10 minutes and missed the next part of the film. This is so much better then the first one, which was great as well. Possibly the funniest movie of all time!!!!! I think the best parts of the film however, are when Bill and Ted shout excellent and play the guitar solo, it was hilarious. Rock on Bill, Ted and Eddie Van Halen, bring out a 3rd film!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****