Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The movie is a fantasy. The story line is thin but serves as the structure upon which some wonderful songs are sung and sung beautifully. (I still cannot believe that such handsome and attractive people could sing this well.) Some of the dialog is wonderfully clever. The costumes made me feel as though I was watching a haute couture fashion show from 1942.

Movies are designed to serve various purposes. This one is designed to entertain and it certainly does. If I have one negative comment it would be that Nelson Eddy was a little too old to be the handsome dashing Count. Some of the closeups made me uncomfortable. But he could still sing and sing magnificently. However, Jeanette MacDonald was just as dazzling as ever. She makes a spectacular angel.

This genre is well before my time, and I an new to the Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy films and related conversation. The music in this movie is beautiful. As much as I love the classic rock music which fills most modern movies, there is no question in my mind that this music is simply and clearly more memorable, more delightful, better constructed. The stars in this movie are more talented than the stars I see in the movie theaters today. And Jeanette MacDonald, without the benefit of Beverly Hills plastic surgeons, was more beautiful than the stars I see today. I am unclear as to why so many other posters are apologetic about liking this movie and more generally this group of movies. They say it is dated and try to explain why it is the way it is. And those that do not like it say that it is not very good but compared to what? I think this movie will doubtless still be entertaining people when so many other movie are long forgotten. There is just too much quality in every way in this movie for it not to be remembered and enjoyed. I recommend this movie without reservation to anyone who appreciates great talent, great beauty and great music.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Three scumbags get their just deserts after wasting their lives in greed, drugs, ego, and bad attitudes. Interesting and well done; this style of film always makes me wonder where reality leaves off and imagination takes over. Even though these folks were the scum of the earth I still found myself pitying them. They never really stood much of a chance.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Fully deserving its prestigious Hollywood award nomination, this is an entertaining little gem with lots of pizazz and some delightful surprises. Outstandingly funny scenes include an hilarious shoot (and re-shoot) of a WW1 trench scene with Australian comedian Clyde Cook as an optimistic non-com and the hapless McDoakes as a Boyer/Colman messenger all under the beady eye of Ralph Sanford's delightfully irascible Anguish; a lost McDoakes guided and re-guided by equally perplexed Jack Carson; assistant director Chandler rejoicing in a McDoakes-sent opportunity: "I'm going to be a director!"

Ace comic O'Hanlon has a dual role, playing both McDoakes and himself playing McDoakes! Oddly, Richard L. Bare who does play himself in one or more other entries in the series, has turned down that opportunity here. In real life, Bare's a youngish, six-foot Rock Hudson lookalike, but here he's impersonated by veteran actor (over 500 movies!), Jack Mower.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.

The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.

However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).

Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I had watched "The Eye" before I watched this one. I really liked "The eye", it was one of the best movies of the recent Asian horror-cinema. So, I picked this "Bangkok haunted" because it was the same director, and it was kind of popular round here. But man, what a disappointment... "Bangkok haunted" are three stories about love, revenge, ghosts, etc. that are no scary at all, not even disturbing (as "The eye" was)... no nothing. I can't even fill the 10 lines required for the comment...

100% boring.

*My rate: 2/10