Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.

Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: WOW! Pretty terrible stuff. The Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor roadshow lands in Sardinia and hooks up with arty director Joseph Losey for this remarkably ill-conceived Tennessee Williams fiasco. Taylor plays a rich, dying widow holding fort over her minions on an island where she dictates, very loudly, her memoirs to an incredibly patient secretary. When scoundrel Burton shows up claiming to be a poet and old friend, Taylor realizes her time is up. Ludicrious in the extreme --- it's difficult to determine if Taylor and Burton are acting badly OR if it was Williams' intention to make their characters so unappealing. If that's the case, then the acting is brilliant! Burton mumbles his lines, including the word BOOM several times, while Taylor screeches her's. She's really awful. So is Noel Coward as Taylor's catty confidante, the "Witch of Capri."

Presumably BOOM is about how fleeting time is and how fast life moves along --- two standard Williams themes, but it's so misdirected by Losey, that had Taylor and Burton not spelled it out for the audience during their mostly inane monologues, any substance the film has would have been completely diluted.

BOOM does have stunning photography---the camera would have to have been out of focus to screw up the beauty of Sardinia! The supporting cast features Joanna Shimkus, the great Romolo Valli as Taylor's resourceful doctor and Michael Dunn as her nasty dwarf security guard...both he and his dogs do a number on Burton!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: 1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.

On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.

But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Man would expect that a movie shot with an approx. budget of 300,000,000 U$D should at least entertain you for the time you are spending in the cinema actally watching it. "Matrix Reloaded" proves this assumption wrong.

"The Matrix" worked out better, despite having apparent holes concerning logic of the story. At least nobody could explain to me why beating up a bot (aka agent) inside a simulation (aka martix) would harm the responsible computer program in any way...

Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers made excactly this "agent-bashing" the main thing in "Matrix Reloaded": it's a beat 'em up o-rama. This fighting scenes may be work out sufficient (or even cool) in a 5 sec. trailer, but prolonged for several minutes, apparently being faked, choreographed poorly and repeated over and over again it is nothing more than boring. Despite seeing the promised spectecular stunts there is nothing more than simple low-quality, unimaginative bashing already seen (or better not) in eg. Van Damme 'movies'. The difference of post-production (etherything is 5 times faster, the camera floats around a lot and freezes on certain scenes, and this is repeated for at least 5min) doesn't help here, all this has nothing to do with the very meaning of "martial arts". Beside these 'fights', all actors do refuse to do what they are payed for: acting.

What's up besides the fighting scenes? Few except Hollywood routine. This oh-so-multicultural bunch of hippies which sucked in "Waterworld" are recycled as citizen of "Zion" (mans last city on earth), and on the order of Morpheus they start dancing, 'cause this is a good opportunity to show a lot of barely covered tits and butts. The oh-so-popular clichee of the frog aka frenchmen talking with this "je ne sais quoi" dumb accent, who wastes his fortune because of a "liason d'amour" is bravely served. Following this (and unwanted funny) is the fight between Neo and the sinister followers of 'the frog', since it takes place in an Erroy Flynn like enterieur, luckily featuring a lot of mideaval weapons for decoration. For Neo posing with the hellebarde, just add 2 stairs and a lot of statues (for being destructed, thrown over evil guys and the like) and you get 5 more senseless, boring min. of this junk.

Whats left to expect? The usual merchandising hell. And "revolutions" which will happen or not - certainly without me.