Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Not for people without swift mind or without a drop of Balkan blood in their veins. If You don't have any of these You can not understand it. And if you don't understand, you can't enjoy it. :) For example if you think Picasso is a name of a car produced by Citroen, probably if you see a Picasso's painting you just will walk by it, deciding that it's a trash-work of some street painter. :) So do not judge, before trying to understand it :) In the end i think it's a MUST for every one with open minds. Still my N1 remains The Shawshank Redemption! And remember that not all things can be put in frames. Because there are things in this world, that any frame just won't fit.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Monika Mitchell's showbiz satire has some laughs and some premeditated violence. I wouldn't say blood-soaked; but there is insult and injury. Max Matteo(John Cassini)is a character actor that has a quirky adaptable presence on screen, but he has a terrible track record of being chosen for the parts he goes after. There is always a producer's nephew or seemingly trivial reason for his not being awarded the role he seeks. Well, the best thing to do is get rid of the competition...Max becomes obsessed with such thoughts. The rewarding career is just a swing, push and shot away. Other cast members: Rene Rivera, Molly Parker, Jennifer Beals, Frank Cassini and cameos by Eric Roberts and Sandra Oh. Well, that's show business...or is it?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This, I think, is one of the best pictures ever made. It's so pure and beautiful. It really touched me. I'm glad David Lynch proved that a film doesn't necessarily need SFX, a twisting, complicated plot or flashy images. Way to go,Dave. I'd like to see Cronenberg do that!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Ok, so, this is coming a few weeks late, but it is here. Mostly, this is because of statements of various negative natures. Starting with the technology. When Star Trek: TOS ran, special effect technology was extreamely low tec, and more than that, the crew had little money to do any kind of proper mock ups. In the 35 years seince TOS premiered, the crew of Star Trek have become experts at economy.

Ultimately, they have decided, quite rightly in my mind, to abandon the look of TOS and reverse engineered TNG et all. So what if they decided not to make the transporter out of gold glitter or made the phase pistols look closer to the ones from Star Trek II? As for the nits being picked about first contact with the Klingon Empire, it was presumed based upon comments made by Kirk and Riker that Earth only met the Klingon's in 2200. Nothing was firmly established.

Enterprise gives us the most promising venue of exploration that we've seen in a while. This is what Voyager COULD have been. No series can evolve without a few inconsistancies, but be thankful that Star Trek has so few. So, quit gripping and enjoy.