Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Jean-Jacques' career began with his essay answer to a prize question: civilization makes us evil. This intelligent and exciting movie supports that argument. In that sense it repeats a theme common to French films: society is real, identity is a construction, freedom is criminal. Here the idea is treated literally. Both main characters find themselves, and each other, only when breaking rules. This discovery may well hold true in France; at any rate, it's quite romantic.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie is a re-write of the 1978 Warren Beatty movie, "Heaven Can Wait", but it is written for the stand-up comedic style of Mr Rock. The premise remains the same: Lance Barton, (Rock) is taken before his life time is up and works a deal with God's representative, Mr King, to come back to earth as someone else. As in Beatty's movie; he chooses the murdered Charles Wellington, a rich white man, all because he fancies Sontee Jenkins (Regina King) who happens to turn up at Wellington's house during the murder. The role of Mrs Wellington and her lover suffers in this remake and the idea to turn an aged white multi-millionaire into a stand up black comedian who tries to woo Sontee simply does not work. Also the intercuts used to show Rock as Wellington and then as the real 'white' Wellington, fail miserably. Improvements could have been made to the original Beatty plot - which in itself did not masterfully portray the life-after-death idea - but they certainly were not to be found in "Down To Earth".
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I've now just realised that by watching this film I have lost valuable precious moments of my life I will never get back. Thsi film isn't just poor its dire. It reminded me of every stereotypical black sitcom ever made.

I regret watching this film.

Flixmedia reckons its a race issue, apparently "White" people don't like it because it doesn't have white actors. Mate, I think you'll find the reason why no one liked this was because watching paint dry is far more entertaining and funnier then this pile of drivel.

Please stop making crap films
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I couldn't believe this terrible movie was actually made at all. With the worst actors you could find, the worst script written (Mark Frost & Sollace Mitchell) and by far the worst waste of time in viewing. I won't belabor the story as it's really not worth it. But I will elaborate on some of the performances and definitely the story. As to the story, it is very hard to believe that this bitty crazy schemer could actually do what she did. That in reality the wife couldn't defend herself against a little bitty of a thing. That the husband could actually find the nut case attractive at all. That the defense attorney could break every court rule there was and keep on doing it after the judge ordered the blankety blank to shut up. And the final result of the film is an insult to justice, movie codes, and the male species. The theme of this mess is let women do as they wish, kill whom they want, defend the killer and get away with it, while the guy rots in jail the innocent victim. Hard to believe that Sollace Mitchell, the director and a man, would even want to make this dribble.

As to the acting: Jordan Ladd, the killer, is awful. A loony toons, who does needlepoint during her murder trial (is this allowed in court?) She bored me to the hilt. One more look of her batting her eyes and indicating how innocent she was and I'd throw up. She's not even attractive enough for any guy to leave his wife. The husband, played on one level by Vincent Spano, just seems to look and act stupid most of the time. He was so predictable in his performance falling into the traps set for him by all the women surrounding him. The worst by far was Holland Taylor as the Defense Attourney. She over acted throughout the film and made a mockery of justice. If she would cross examine me anytime, I'd have told her to go take a hike. Everybody else in this sleazy film did their job as directed to do so.

I wish I could give this film a zero rating. However we are forced to start with 1. Too bad. Let's not have anymore painful watching films like this. Lifetime can do better then this, I know it.

This is a postscript: Made the mistake of turning this insipid movie on by mistake. As soon as I saw the bimbo Jordan Ladd I knew I'd seen it before and didn't like it or her. I not only turned the darn thing off but had to add my anger at people like Sollace Mitchell who wrote the screenplay but also directed this horrible flick. Doesen't anyone see that her/his message is that sickness pays. Being ill and going around killing people is okay with this director/writer. Totally making the male species idiots. Well, this male tells you to go stuff it somewhere painful. We're not all that stupid and will speak out to your so called movie, which in this person's mind deserves to be trashed.

And again this loser is shown. Why???? Can't you read the comments on this stupid and despicable movie? Are we constantly subjected to see the bimbo Jordan Ladd again and again? Get her off TV, films and out of sight. She's just terrible in every sense of the word. Phew!!!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.

But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.

It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.

Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.