Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.

Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.

The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.

Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O'Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off

I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn't until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen's stature wouldn't star in a TVM , I mean that's like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn't Bob .... ?

Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you've got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it's not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it

I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it's a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you'd expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Along with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the "hip" quotient. You're better off skipping this one.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless.

boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.

tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.

only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.

Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.

i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.

it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.

on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.

as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.

as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.

negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -

as it is, it's a real hoot.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.

A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.

Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.

The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting?

The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.

And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.

And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.

Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.

It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.

4/10