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

Answer: In this 1943 film, Judy Garland is deemed not to be ready for the big-time yet by the man who loves her-Van Heflin. This film was certainly a big change for Mr. Heflin, especially after his supporting Oscar win the year before in "Johnny Eager."

Wasn't Spring Byington too old to be the widowed mother of 5 children, with four of them appearing to look like her grandchildren?

The singing and dancing are just marvelously staged but the way that the blossoming romance between Heflin and Garland was depicted left a lot to be desired. It was a Gigi-like one where a young girl is eventually swept off her feet by a charmer.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I liked this movie I remember there was one very well done scene in this movie where Riff Randell (played by P.J. Soles) is lying in her bed smoking pot and then she begins to visualize that the Ramones are in the room with her sing the song "I Want You Around" ...very very cool stuff.

It was fun, energetic, quirky and cool. Yes I'll admit that the ending is way-way over the top and far fetched ...but it doesn't matter because it is fun this is a very fun movie. It's Sex, Pot and Rock n Rocll forever

I read that Cheap Trick was the band who was originally to star in this ..But I do not know if this is true or not
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I thought that this was an absolutely charming movie centering around the lives of Mary-Kate's and Ashley's characters Sam and Emma Stanton! They are both trying to make both themselves and their parents happy but; unfortunately, it's just not that easy for them to actually do! I thought that this was an utterly charming and sweet movie and if you are a real fan of these marvelous young ladies then I'm sure that you'll agree with me here! If you haven't seen this movie yet then I say you really missed-out; big time, and that you should definitely take the time out to see it now! This movie is a real winner! Sincerely, Rick Morris
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I originally saw this very dark comedy around 2000 or so on cable TV. What a surprise and delight! Everyone is covertly armed in this movie! Dreyfuss plays the "mental" don (remember the New York don who was supposed to be schizophrenic? Art imitates life or vice-versa?). Diane Lane and Ellen Barkin are at their most beautiful and NOT to be toyed with! Thus proving that beauty and toughness DO go together! Then there is the great "bullshit" scene between Barkin and Jeff Goldblum (Rita and Mickey) where they verbally play off the world "bullshit." This film is both subtle and bald. For all the shooting, it can be a very quiet film. And, you have the opportunity to see several actors in their final or near final roles. Joey Bishop. Richard Pryor. Henry Silva. It is not a film for everyone. But, if you like a film that has a lot of word play and keeps moving without blowing up everything in sight, this is the film for you. Roger Ebert dumps on this film. He's flat wrong. THIS is a fine, fine film! Maybe just not one for Ebert. I consider it as a 10 because of how well it is done and how funny the script can be, while not really being a straight comedy kind of film. I like it so well that I bought it on DVD because it just doesn't get shown very much on cable TV. Now, it's all mine!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Pendragon Pictures' new film "H G Wells' War of the Worlds", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's version, which hits theatres June 29.

I liked this film, with certain reservations.

How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.

Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for "real" seem to be those in open fields or forests.

But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.

The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.

I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.

A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.

Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing? If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.

BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds (aka "INVASION") came out on DVD the same month that Spielberg's hit the theatres: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film - but it's much better! And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...

This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of cliches, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.

Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.

Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?