Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I sense out there a mix of confusion and varying degrees of personal taste in the reactions to this film. Yes, there are vampire stereotypes. Yes, there are scientific stereotypes covered here. Even martial arts stereotypes. All well and good, and sure, not all perfectly done. However, I sense one crucial point about this film is being overlooked...the cultural significance of its location. The film is set in Pensacola, Florida, and does not try to avoid saying so. That's a bold move in the film world today, and a rare treat for fans of indy films. And indeed, it may not be the last. Pensacola is world renowned as a Navy town, an aviation town, a lumber town, and sometimes even as a hotbed for political controversy. Rarely is it seen as a growing film town. But that's all changing now. More film companies are coming in to shoot. And more native Pensacolians are discovering the power of cinema for themselves. This film is part of a growing trend of Pensacola-based indy films, and more are on the way. Pensacola is making a big noise in the global film community, and by and by, the world is taking more notice. Watch and listen, world. The Pensacolians are coming. Like a virus.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.

The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.

For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: D.W. Griffith could have made any film he wanted to after the enormous financial success of 'The Birth of a Nation'; he chose to make the most technically ambitious film to that date, 'Intolerance.' He took a risk with such innovations in film montage and form, and the well-known financial train wreck resulted. Buster Keaton doesn't take that kind of a risk with 'Three Ages,' a parody of 'Intolerance.' This is Keaton's first feature-length film of his own (he only acted in 'The Saphead'). He had the fallback plan of dividing the three episodes in this film into three separate shorts, which Griffith did do with 'Intolerance.' Keaton didn't have to. Chaplin had already succeeded with feature-length comedies, so if Keaton was taking a risk here, it was completely calculated.

Chaplin had already done a parody of another film, too, with 'Burlesque on Carmen' (1915). Keaton appears to allude to that film, as well. The wrestling scene in the Ancient Rome episode references the swordfight that turns into a wrestling match in Chaplin's film. The comical distance from the plot of both scenes is the same, too. Furthermore, Chaplin's film imitated the glossy style of DeMille's 'Carmen,' and Chaplin's film seemed a tribute to that film. Keaton doesn't attempt the radical editing, narrative structure or monumental nature in his parody, but it seems respectful of 'Intolerance' nonetheless. At least, the stories aren't told completely straightforward as in other post-'Intolerance' films, such as Dreyer's 'Leaves from Satan's Book' (Blade af Satans bog, 1921) and Fritz Lang's 'Destiny' (Der Mude Tod, 1921). There is some mild jumping back and forth between episodes.

Where Keaton did take risks, however, is in his physical, daredevil comedy. That's Keaton unintentionally failing to jump across buildings in the modern episode. Reportedly, he was convinced to alter the scene rather than attempt the jump again. And, it wasn't just Keaton who took risks; the anachronistic baseball gag, for example, was rather dangerous. Thus, although in a different way, Keaton, like Griffith, took risks with his big film. And, I think they both succeeded.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I loved the episode but seems to me there should have been some quick reference to the secretary getting punished for effectively being an accomplice after the fact. While I like when a episode of Columbo has an unpredictable twist like this one, its resolution should be part of the conclusion of the episode, along with the uncovering of the murderer.

The interplay between Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon is priceless. At one point, Gordon, playing a famous writer, makes some comment about being flattered by the famous Lt. Columbo, making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the detective's real life fame as a crime-solver. This is one of the best of many great Columbo installments.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.