Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.

Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.

Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.

Sad, very sad.

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: He now has a name, an identity, some memories and a a lost girlfriend. All he wanted was to disappear, but still, they traced him and destroyed the world he hardly built. Now he wants some explanation, and to get ride of the people how made him what he is. Yeah, Jason Bourne is back, and this time, he 's here with a vengeance.

OK, this movie doesn't have the most elaborated script in the world, but its thematics are very clever and ask some serious questions about our society. Of course, like every Hollywoodian movie since the end of the 90's, "The Bourne Suprematy" is a super-heroes story. Jason Bourne is a Captain-America project-like, who's gone completely wrong. In the first movie, the hero discovered his abilities and he accepted them in the second one. He now fights against what he considers like evil, after a person close to him has been killed (his girlfriend in "Suprematy") by them. That's all a part of the super-hero story, including a character with (realistic but still impressive : he almost invincible) super powers.

And the interesting point is that the evil he fights all across the world (there's no frontiers in the Bourne's movies, characters are going from one continent to another in the blink of an eye), is, as in the best seasons of "24", an American enemy, who's beliefs that he fight for the good of his country completely blinds him. Funny how "mad patriots" are now the N.1 enemies of paranoiac Hollywood's stories.

Beside all those interesting thematics, the movie isn't flawless : the feminine character of Nickie Parson is for now on completely useless and the direction is quite unoriginal when it comes to dialogs scenes. But all that doesn't really matter, for "The Bourne Ultimatum" is an action movie. And the action scenes are rather impressive.

Everyone here is talking about the "Waterloo scene" and the "Tanger pursuit" and everyone's right. I particularly enjoyed the fight in Tanger, that reminds my in its exaggeration and craziness the works of Tsui Hark. Visually inventive scenes, lots of intelligent action parts and a good reflection on American's contemporary thematics : "The Bourne Ultimatum" is definitely the best movie of the series and a very interesting and original action flick.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly