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

Answer: I had no problem with the film, which I thought was pretty good. It's the actual LAPD crime scene video that disturbed me. I wonder if Lion's Gate REALLY thought that the general viewing audience would want to see people that were brutally beaten to death and blood all over the place. Sorry Lion's Gate, this was an INCREDIBLY BAD IDEA!!!

Getting back to the film: The cast was excellent, especially Val Kilmer as the late John Holmes. John Holmes was a sleaze ,mistreats the women in his life (Lisa Kudrow as his wife, Kate Bosworth as his girlfriend),and he is hopelessly deep into drugs. His connection to Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian)creates a spiral that resulted in the infamous Wonderland murders. Exactly how much was Holmes involved in the murders? We may never know the entire truth to the story(Nash is still alive and a free man),but the film does a pretty good job nonetheless.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Coyote Ugly might have been much more effective if the film-makers had made it an R-rated guilty pleasure/exploitation film (with plenty of nudity.) But since the PG-13 rating is what all the studios are wanting these days, we end up with a movie like this: a PG-13 "tease" flick that isn't allowed to go nowhere near as far as the movie should have gone.

The script is go generic that it is easy to guess what plot point is going to occur 15 minutes before it actually happens. The acting is adequate, but the characters are so paper-thin that nothing could be done with them. There were also a lot of points where it seemed like I was watching a music-video rather than a movie.

The film's only assets are the amazingly beautiful female leads. We get to see them in some extremely tight and pretty revealing outfits.....but only so much could be shown due to the PG-13 constraints. There's plenty of cleavage and toned, heaving bodies doing some well-choreographed dance numbers, but there's no nudity or sex to speak of. Tyra Banks (she keeps getting even more insanely beautiful with age) is also in the movie for a very small amount of time. Sexy newcomer Piper Perabo is also very easy on the eyes (and she has a killer smile) and shows some genuine acting potential.

The only people I could see this movie appealing to is pre-pubescent boys who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies yet. That audience might get a lot out of it from a titillation aspect, but adult audiences will feel annoyed and cheated.

Rating: the movie-1 the women-10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.

Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.

The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.

No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)

I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.

But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.

Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.

Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.

There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.

After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Shallow, shallow script ...stilted acting ...the shadows of boom mikes lingering over the actors' heads in scenes ...worth watching because Kate Mulgrew plays the most selfish mother in TV movie history and it's all before Ben Affleck got his teeth capped.