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

Answer: SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD

Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club, cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to the bathroom?

Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks into their room?

How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don't IMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's and then start going through their stuff?

If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was a murderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a wooden platform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a ratty old barn or other decrepit structure?

I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in the last few years, but since this is the "The Return" page, obviously I'm talking about "The Return." I saw it free because I work at a movie theater and make a point of screening all the "scary" movies. I thought this one was tolerable... aside from the well-worn cliches. Sarah Michelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of "Huh?" through most of the film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movie progresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except there wasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost until the last 2/3 of it.

If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. If there's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch a movie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinee ticket. If you thought the trailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait... wait.

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

Answer: You can tell a Lew Grade production a mile off distinctly British in style; epic in conception; peopled by international all-star casts; usually set in exotic climes. It's a formula that Grade and his company ITC employed throughout the 70s into the early 80s, resulting in titles like The Eagle Has Landed, Firepower, and Raise The Titanic! In 1977 Grade produced March Or Die, a remarkably old-fashioned Foreign Legion adventure that models all the characteristics mentioned above. Directed by the usually dependable Dick Richards who helmed the acclaimed Farewell My Lovely just a couple years earlier - March Or Die is an unfortunate disappointment.

A company of Foreign Legionnaires led by the harsh disciplinarian General Foster (Gene Hackman) is sent to Morocco shortly after World War 1. Their mission is to protect an archaeological party fronted by the dedicated Francois Marneau (Max Von Sydow). The archaeologists are carrying out an excavation at the ancient city of Erfoud, but fear an attack from Arab tribesmen following the decimation of an earlier archaeological group. Foster is not happy with the assignment he does not consider historical artifacts worthy of his men risking their lives. This creates ongoing tension between himself and Marneau, who believes that the legionnaires should sacrifice their lives to make the excavation possible. The problems heighten when a beautiful woman named Simone Picard (Catherine Deneuve) tags along with the legionnaires. She is hoping to find out what happened to her father, a historian abducted by the Arabs when they wiped out the first archaeological team. Her presence arouses desires amongst the legionnaires, none more so than gypsy thief Marco Segrain (Terence Hill), a charming and courageous rogue who initially shows indifference towards his legionnaire colleagues but gradually grows in stature. Things climax with a huge battle at Erfoud, with swarms of united Arab tribes charging against the handful of legionnaires as they desperately try to defend their lives.

On paper the star duo of Gene Hackman and Terence Hill seem a mismatch Hackman is the heavyweight Oscar-winning character actor, Hill the handsome but limited Italian heart-throb from numerous low budget spaghetti westerns. One expects Hackman to act his counterpart off the screen. Yet, bizarrely, it is Hackman who gives the weak and uninvolving performance, while Hill raises his game to surprisingly high levels. The film is attractively shot on desert locations, but the pacing is awfully slow and few of the characters are worth caring for. Maurice Jarre's music is uncommonly flat too very disappointing from the guy who gave us the Lawrence Of Arabia score. It is remarkable that anyone had the nerve to try an old-fashioned adventure of this type in the 70s (it was a genre that peaked in the 30s, and had been all but forgotten during the intervening decades). Sadly, the gamble doesn't really pay off this homage to the legionnaire flicks of old becomes more of a plod than a march.

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

Answer: This is an interesting series that takes real life people (Jesse James, John Wesley Hardin, etc)...and dramatizes part of their real story with a continuing series character taking part in that story. Railroad Detective "Matt Clark" -- takes a role in tracking down famous outlaws from the Old West in stories that are at least partly based on the true accounts. In that sense, it's almost an anthology series, and as someone else pointed out, this odd structure poses some timeline conflicts with the real events, but it's a fun series with plenty of action to satisfy a western-hungry 1950's audience -- and it still holds up pretty well 55 years later. Clark cuts a powerful figure in his western gear as he goes up against some of history's baddest baddies. And his girl-sidekick Frankie is quite a dish. If you're a western fan, be sure to check it out if you have a chance.

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

Answer:
I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through "similar" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliche-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired "concepts" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliche already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliche heavy drivel like this is still accepted as "arthouse". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch.