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

A: I, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the "masterpiece" that all these "Titanic" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting "skills" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, "Titanic" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond me.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Playwright Sidney Bruhl (a wonderfully over-the-top Michael Caine) would kill for a hit play. Enter young wonder kid (a solid Reeve) who's just written such a play. Weave into this Bruhl's overly hysterical wife (superbly played by Cannon) and a German psychic (a very funny Irene Worth) and you've got yourself a wonderfully funny suspense flick.

While not up to "Sleuth" standards, "Deathtrap" is none the less a very capable, twist filled comical suspense ride based on a terrific play by Ira Levin. The performers are obviously having a field day with the material, with Caine in particular delivering top notch lines with gusto.

The film loses a bit of steam midway through and the ending is a lot less satisfying than the hilarious one in the original play but overall "Deathtrap" is solid, well acted and suspenseful fun.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have not seen each and every one of Chan's movies, but this is for sure the best one I have seen so far.

The story in it self is nothing special really, so I won't go deeper into that. What makes it special is the stunts, the fighting, the good acting, the warm sense of humor. The movie has a raging tempo all the way through and you are just stunned seeing it. All the cool stunts (of course made by Jackie himself)makes you want jump around in the couch and scream. It's just awesome! Even my mom was impressed by this cool movie when she saw it.

I know this Police Story can be a bit hard to get a hold of, at least it is here in Sweden. But I can assure you, it's worth a try.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring".

Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round.

Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to "cleverly offensive". It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face.

In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F????

Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:

1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.

2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people.

3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in "abortion" and "condom" was seen as "edgy".

4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought "pedophile" and "homosexual" were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing.

5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever.

Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
BABY FACE is one of the better of the "forgotten" films before the code. It was shown last night after the 1931 version of WATERLOO BRIDGE on the TURNER CLASSIC NETWORK, so I was able to watch the film as it is now with four plus minutes of it restored.

Stanwyck is living in East St. Louis (where she may have known the drunken parents of "Myra" - Mae Clarke - in WATERLOO BRIDGE). Her father is Robert Barrett. She has lived with him since the death of her mother, and (in the restored dialog) he has been pimping her since she was 14 years old. Now she is resident waitress and part-time whore in his speakeasy, her closest friend being Chico (Theresa Harris), the African-American servant who Barrett keeps bullying. It is one of the two good points of Stanwyck's personality that she keeps standing up to her father about Harris, threatening to leave if Harris is fired (and since it is the grubby workers like Nat Pendleton, who enjoy seeing Stanwyck serve them, rather than the flavor of the hooch he serves that brings them in, Barrett has to obey her).

The one guy who comes to the speakeasy regularly whom Stanwyck likes is the shoemaker and intellectual Adolf Cragg (Alphonse Ethier), who sees great potential in the spirited girl if she will just leave her forsaken home. He is also pushing the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, and the idea of the will to power. More about this later.

After she knocks out the local political bigwig (Arthur Hohl), and has an argument with Barrett about this, a still explosion kills Barrett, and enables Stanwyck to leave her home town. She and Harris head to New York City, managing to get free transport by a railroad freight car by sleeping with a brakeman (James Murray). They reach New York, and after walking about they see the Gotham Trust Company (established 1873), and the friendly guard tells her where the personnel office is.

We slowly watch Stanwyck ascend the corporate ladder to the top, similar (but sleazier) than Robert Morse dared in HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. But Morse was a man in a man dominated company. Stanwyck knows her sexual allure is her weapon. She goes through John Wayne, Douglas Dumbrille (a section of the film that I always felt was the most shocking - curiously enough - when I watched it), Douglas Wood, Henry Kolker, and finally George Brent. Each ends up falling for her, and either being pushed aside when no longer useful, or destroyed by her. Brent, the new President of the Bank his grandfather founded, eventually marries her - and the crisis of the film is when the bank's economic situation is shaken (especially after Brent buys her a fortune in jewels and gives her valuable bonds). Brent is indicted. Will she stick up for him?

SPOILER COMING UP:

The one thing about these films that is not admitted is that the theatrical and moral conventions of the time still dictated endings. The original ending had Stanwyck boarding a ship for Europe abandoning Brent to his fate, but realizing she can't do it to him, returning to their apartment house, and finding he's shot himself. She is riding with him to the hospital as it ends. Now before the rediscovered footage was found, the film ended with them apparently giving up all their money to the bank to save it, and retiring back to East St. Louis, to live happily if poor.

Neither of these are good endings. Stanwyck should continue on her destructive course, with Brent the last of her victims. But even without the Breen office the script writers (one is Darryl Zanuck, by the way) saw fit to have her find a moral center. She has none - at least none for powerful men (whom she hates). I don't think that a depression audience would have tolerated that type of conclusion.

There are other problems, due to the changing styles of public opinion and changes in society. It was a man's world in the corporate world in 1933, so Stanwyck has her work cut out for her. Wood (when she is going to be fired for an indiscretion with him) admits that he did not want her to work.

But in 2006, Stanwyck would have been finding woman all over the place. In the film there are nasty, catty remarks (obviously some based on jealousy) towards Stanwyck from other secretaries and female employees at her rapid rise. In 2006, she'd be frequently confronting women superiors, and she would find them cutting her off at the legs very quickly. Of course, if she finds one or two are lesbians she might try that road but it is doubtful. And she also never seems to meet any men who are gay. They do have gay male executives in business, who wouldn't give a damn about her legs or breasts.

Then there is her mentor, Mr Cragg. Cragg is remade in the "bowdlerized" version into trying to make her seek a moral center. In reality he pushes Nieztsche, but the way (in a broader sense) the Nazis pushed Nieztsche - find your way to power and push it. While Nieztsche did stress power sometimes, it wasn't the be-all and end-all of his theories. Otherwise nobody would read him today in college courses. Cragg is obviously self-educated, but only half-educated. In short if somebody who thoroughly studied Nieztsche confronted Cragg he'd make him look like a half-educated fool. And this is Stanwyck's mentor! A good film, and for it's day worth a 10...but seriously flawed.