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

Answer: This Alec Guinness starrer is a very good fun political satire of corporate industry, and a light eccentric character study as well.

The pacing is a bit slow for a comedy, and none of it is really rolling-on-the-floor type funny, except perhaps the sound effects for the experiments. But it does have its amusing moments, and it is very deft in its execution. The big explosions segment is probably the most farcical element.

The union procedures are quite droll, very reminiscent of I'M ALL RIGHT JACK; especially the feminine socialist with a light romantic crush on Guinness' character. The political machinations actually carry the story. Ernest Thesigner is very notable as a heavy.

I don't think this one works quite as well as THE LADYKILLERS, or KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS; but even light Ealing comedy is better than nothing.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I don't doubt that Victor McLaglen won his Best Actor Oscar for this film by dint of a three way split among the Mutiny on the Bounty leads of Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tone who were all in the same race. But The Informer is still a fine film because John Ford wouldn't have gotten his first Best Director Oscar if it wasn't. No split involved in his award.

The movie and the story by Liam O'Flaherty that it is based on involves a poor simpleton of a man named Gypo Nolan who was once a member of the Irish Republican Army. He was cashiered out of it for some imbecilic stunt he pulled and wants back in. He's down to his last pence and if he can't get back in, wants enough for passage to America. There's a twenty pound reward for information leading to the arrest of a former comrade named Frankie McPhillip played by Wallace Ford. In a moment of weakness he goes to the Black and Tan constabulary and informs on McPhillip.

The IRA is pretty anxious to find out who ratted McPhillip out and they're pretty certain it was McLaglen. He hasn't the wit to really cover his own tracks. He does make a feeble effort to implicate another man named Peter Mulligan played by Donald Meek. He also picks up a hanger-on played by J.M. Kerrigan.

The whole action of The Informer takes place in 1922 in Dublin from about six in the evening to early the following morning. Of a necessity it is shot in darkness and shadows, making it possibly the first noir thriller. Had it been done post World War II The Informer would have ranked as a great noir classic, like Odd Man Out or the The Third Man which it bares a lot of resemblance to.

John Ford knew this world very well. He took some time off during the Rebellion and was in Ireland at the time and had a brother who was in the IRA. His real name before having it anglicized was Sean O'Fiernan.

Preston Foster plays the IRA commandant Dan Gallagher. In the book Gallagher is a harder and meaner man than Foster has him here. My guess is that John Ford wanted him as a sympathetic character to give movie fans some rooting interest. He makes it clear that Foster has to eliminate the informer because the Black and Tans will grab him and get quite a bit more out of him and put the whole organization in peril.

The IRA trial scene is the highlight of the film. When Foster asks Donald Meek whether he recognizes the authority of their court, Meek ain't in a position to say no. The King's justice and writ does not run here. It graphically illustrates at that point despite occupation by army troops and constabulary, the British are indeed losing their grip on the population.

Of course The Informer a rather grim story has its John Ford touches, but rather fewer than you would expect. Even as McLaglen is spending his money on a drunken spree, the IRA is constantly in the shadows watching him and counting every farthing.

The Informer is a tale well told about Ireland in a grim and dismal time.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)

I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
And I repeat, please do not see this movie! This is more than a review. This is a warning. This sets the record for the worst, most effortless comedy ever made. At least with most of the recent comedies nowadays, the gags are crude and flat, but the writers and directors put in at least some sort of effort into making them funny. I never get tired of repeating one of my favorite mottos: Everyone thinks they can do comedy, and only 10 percent of them are right. Comedy is hard! This is not some genre any fool can play around with. I think it's atrocious that the filmmakers are comparing this piece of garbage to "Kentucky Fried Movie." Basically, these bozos are comparing their so-called comic talents to those of the brilliant Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Come on, I've seen Pauly Shore movies that are 10 times funnier than "The Underground Comedy Movie." Here's a sample of the comedy for those curious about seeing this movie: One sketch involves a superhero dressed like a penis named D**kman. The whole joke is that he defeats his enemies by squirting them with semen. That's it. That's the whole joke. Wow. This is enough to make Carrot Top roll his eyes. Another sketch involves a man having sex with a dead person in a porn movie. And in another sketch, there's a bag lady beauty contest, in which we're exposed to the horrible sights of bikini-clad middle-aged women with beer guts and stretch marks. Plus, making fun of the homeless is more sad than funny. It's a step away from mocking the mentally handicapped. The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. I think the filmmakers forgot that a key element of satire...is TRUTH!!! For anybody who actually enjoyed this crap, explain to me what is truthful about ANY of these gags! Some of the sketches might've sounded funny on paper, but anybody who's taken any screen writing classes knows that if a sight gag sounds too funny on paper, it probably won't be funny on screen. If I tell someone about a big, black, muscular gay virgin, who's saving himself for the right man, he or she would probably laugh. But watching the premise played out on screen for about 10 minutes is a complete drag. I hate how whenever people criticize a low-brow comedy like this for not being funny, they're regarded as stuck-up squares. I just saw "White Chicks" recently. That's another low-brow, politically incorrect comedy, but I laughed my head off. The most offensive thing about "The Underground Comedy Movie" is it's not funny! What the writers and directors don't understand is that merely being filthy and tasteless doesn't work. There has to be more! Just think of the famous scene from "There's Something About Mary" (ironically, enough the bozo filmmakers put the Farrellys on their special thanks list). The joke about the semen wasn't just funny because it involved bodily fluids. There was a buildup. Ben Stiller was masturbating in the bathroom to make sure he didn't go out on a date with a "loaded gun." Then he looked around to see where all the semen went after it was released. A knock is on the door, and he has to answer it. His date, Mary, is at the door and that's when it's revealed that the semen is hanging off Ben's ear. In this movie, there are multiple gags involving characters squirting loads of semen at people, with no buildup whatsoever. As Jay Leno always says, "This comedy thing's not so easy, is it?" Keep that in mind, Vince Offer, 'cause you weren't cut out for this genre!! The only reason people might laugh at these gags is because they want to feel hip. Let's face it, nowadays it's hip to laugh at anything politically incorrect. I know comedy is subjective...but this movie shouldn't be funny to anybody, except maybe the filmmakers themselves. As a side note, the movie had to have been made before Michael Clarke Duncan's fame in movies like "Armageddon" and "The Green Mile." There can't be any other reason why an actor of his caliber would volunteer to be part of this amateurish freak show. All the others in the cast are either non-actors, has-been actors or B-movie stars. Karen Black made a good impression in "Five Easy Pieces," but I don't think she's done anything of value ever since. Slash was probably drugged into being in this film. Gina Lee Nolin is nothing without "Baywatch." Angelyne is the film's biggest star (keeping in mind Duncan wasn't famous at the time), and there are still probably a ton of people who haven't heard of her--for good reason. Usually, I'm in support of extremely low-budget flicks, but this one deserves to drift into obscurity. I hope to Lord this doesn't become a cult classic! Shouldn't there be a law against distributing crap like this?