Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.

This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Rohm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Goring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Fuhrer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.

One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland"
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have to confess that I am severely disappointed.

This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.

Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.

Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.

Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.

And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.

No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Master cineaste Alain Resnais likes to work with those actors who are a part of his family.In this film too we see Resnais' family members like Pierre Arditi, Sabine Azema, Andre Dussolier and Fanny Ardant dealing with serious themes like death,religion,suicide,love and their overall implications on our daily lives.The formal nature of relationship shared by these people is evident as even friends, they address each other using a formal you.In 1984,while making L'amour a mort,Resnais dealt with time,memory and space to unravel the mysteries of a fundamental question of human existence :Is love stronger than death ? It was 16 years ago in 1968 that Resnais made a somewhat similar film Je t'aime Je t'aime which was also about love and memories.Message of this film is loud and clear :true and deep love can even put science to shame as dead lovers regain their lost lives leaving doctors to care for their reputation.L'amour a mort is like a game which is not at all didactic.It is a film in which the musical score is in perfect tandem with its images.This is one of the reasons why this film can easily be grasped.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.

Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!

On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare "Santa Clause vs. Satan" movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes.

Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!

Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This was recently on AMC's vibrant movie classics and I had to laugh. I had high hopes for this adventure that follows in the vein of "Voyage to the Earth's Core" and "Mysterious Island". I was sorely disappointed not only in the acting credentials but in the silly story line that reads from a five year old's comic book. Be sure to catch sight of the wires that are holding on to the Pterdactyl's wings when they grasp "Ogar" a half idiot pre-modern man who befriends the lost adventurers. The ending left it open for further rehashing of the same effects in "People that Time Forgot". Don't waste your time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Barriers seems to be one of those series that have been lost in the mists of time. After it's transmission in the early 80s and one repeat, it's since sunk without trace. This is a crying shame.

I originally watched this when it was transmitted in the Southern TV region on Sunday afternoons and was classic tea-time viewing. Although I don't remember a great deal about the program, a few things stuck in my mind. Most notable were the unforgettable titles. The mournful flute music accompanying the attempted escape across an East European border and the subsequent car crash (and that scene has left me with an abiding love of 'fintail' Mercedes models as they used a Merc 200). Although it wasn't obvious at the start, the solution to the series' mystery was in these titles.

The plot about a young music student trying to unravel what really happened when he discovers he was adopted had lots of twists and turns but Barriers was a surprisingly 'adult' children's drama. Benedict Taylor was excellent as Billy and it was a shame he didn't do a lot more.

This was a quality drama, well overdue for a DVD release and I hope I'll get the chance to re-acquaint myself with it in the future.

A fond memory from my childhood