Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The world of the 1973 sci-fi drama SOYLENT GREEN is what we could be seeing if we aren't careful. It is a world in which New York City's population has topped the 40 million mark in the year 2022. Overpopulation, air pollution, year-long heat waves, and food shortages are the rule. The only hope comes from a food product called Soylent Green. But what is this particular food stuff really made of? That question is at the heart of this admittedly somewhat dated but still intriguing film, based on Harry Harrison's 1966 novel "Make Room! Make Room!" Charlton Heston stars as Thorne, an NYPD detective who comes across the murder of a top corporate executive (Joseph Cotten). As it turns out, Cotten was on the board of directors of the Soylent Corporation, the people responsible for all those food stuffs that the people have to consume in lieu of the real thing. Heston believes that this wasn't just a garden-variety murder, that Cotten was bumped off for a reason. He gets a lot of help from his slightly cantankerous but very astute "book" (Edward G. Robinson, in his 101st and final cinematic appearance), and a few timely reminders of what the world used to be like. What Robinson finds out about Soylent Green shocks him beyond all imagination; but before he can tell Heston all of what he knows, he has himself euthanized. And when Heston does indeed find out the secret of Soylent Green...well, that part has become immortalized into cinematic history.

Under the very professional guiding hand of director Richard Fleischer (THE BOSTON STRANGLER; FANTASTIC VOYAGE), SOYLENT GREEN is a fairly grim but thought-provoking look at a Dystopian future that humanity might be living if we don't curb our tendency to strip our planet of its natural resources. Indeed, this was a project that Heston himself had had in mind for filming as far back as 1968, after he had struck gold in the sci-fi genre with PLANET OF THE APES--a fact that probably gets lost whenever his ultra-conservative political philosophy comes up in conversation (after all, SOYLENT GREEN is hardly a tract for unrestrained capitalism). Robinson, as always, is the consummate professional in his last role; the sequence where he is euthanized (as he looks at video of the world from a better era, set to the music of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) is quite simply heartbreaking. The film also benefits from solid supporting help from Chuck Connors (as a very convincing heavy), Brock Peters (as Heston's superior), and Leigh Taylor-Young as the woman who tries to help Heston in his inquiries.

It must seem easy these days to dismiss SOYLENT GREEN for being dated. But those who do it ought to think twice; for this film's world may end up becoming ours in actuality if we don't watch what we do with what we have today.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.

First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.

However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: "Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferings, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.

Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.

In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.

You catch my thrift?