An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.

The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Sad story of a downed B-17 pilot. Brady is shot down over occupied territory. The local ranchers extended him kindness and protection at the cost of their own lives. I had never heard of this movie and it snagged me for two hours. After the film is over, I'm glad I took the time. It's an entire story told to explain the look on Brady's face at the start of the film.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Charles Boyer is supposed to be Spanish, and he's come to London to buy coal in "Confidential Agent," a 1945 film also starring Lauren Bacall, Katina Paxinou, Peter Lorre, Dan Seymour, and Wanda Hendrix. Boyer is Luis Denard, and everyone is out to stop him except Bacall. His papers are stolen, he's accused of murder but he's determined to get coal for his people so that they can fight the Fascists.

This film has its good and not so good points. It rates high for atmosphere and for suspense, and it is highly entertaining. Bacall is incredibly beautiful, Boyer is passionate, Paxinou is mean, Lorre is slimy, Hendrix appropriately pathetic, and Seymour outrageously wonderful.

The not so good points: Bacall is supposed to be English, and Boyer Spanish. Uh, no. Boyer is terrific in his role even with the wrong accent, but Bacall is 100% American, not of the British upper class. The two have no chemistry. Conclusion: Bacall is somewhat miscast. Her acting isn't up to snuff either; she's better in other films. But she's an astonishing looking woman, and much can be forgiven.

Paxinou is nearly over the top and hateful. Dan Seymour almost steals the entire film as a hotel guest who studies human nature. It's a great part and his performance is perfect, while some of the direction of the other actors isn't as good. This was definitely a case of no small parts, only small actors. Seymour wasn't a small actor.

Definitely worth seeing even with its flaws.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.

Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.

Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.

Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.

It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.

If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Hint number one - read the title as "the Time of the Mad Dog," or perhaps dogs. This is a pretty good ensemble piece (look at the cast and rent it - you know you're curious already), and first-time director Bishop gives them their chance, taking his time, letting the characters interact and chew the scenery as they wait - not enthusiastically - for the return of "the big boss" and whatever revenge ensues.

For some of us, the highlight is seeing Christopher Jones after his self-imposed exile from films; he remains a commanding film presence. And yes, with Christopher Jones, Larry Bishop and Richard Pryor involved, this IS the "Wild in the Streets" reunion party!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.

Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.

Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.

Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.