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

Answer: This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.

This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.

I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"

In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)

One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.

One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I saW this film while at Birmingham Southern College in 1975, when it was shown in combination with the Red Balloon. Both films are similar in their dream-like quality. The bulk of the film entails a fish swimming happily in his bowl while his new owner, a little boy, is away at school. A cat enters the room where the fish and his bowl are, and begins to warily stalk his "prey." The boy begins his walk home from school, and the viewer wonders whether he will arrive in time to save his fish friend. The fish becomes agitated by the cat's presence, and finally jumps out of the bowl! The cat quickly walks over to the fish, gently picks him up with his paws, and returns him to his bowl. The boy returns happily to his fish, none the wiser.

The ending is amazing in both its irony and its technical complexity. It is hard to imagine how the director could've pulled the technical feat back in 1959 -- it seems more a trick for 2003.

If you can find it, watch it -- you won't be disappointed! And if you *do* find it, let me know so I can get a copy, too!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.

This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.

Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.

I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.

I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.

However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.

In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is one of the worst films I've seen. The only positive thing I can say is it was so bad that is seemed comical. First off, there's no plot. The actors appear to be reading off cue cards and do the dumbest things. Such as being chased by dead people but yet wanting to go out and look for their friends. Also the zombies were terrible, no where near as fun as any of Romero's work, who gets s plug in the movie. And the dumbest part of all was they kept showing flashes of the video game in the action sequences. Like we don't get the video game is about shooting zombies. Also, all the 20 somethings some how know how to use automatic weapons and hit a target without even aiming the gun. And the way the people die is so stupid. It's like they run out of ammo so stand around waiting to be jumped on. And when cornered in front of the house they run out of ammo instead of shooting the door open, So dumb.

FINAL VERDICT: If any of these actors appear in another film, then they've been blessed with a second chance. Definitely the worst film I've seen in years. A B-movie on cinemax is better.