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

Answer: I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: VAMPYRES

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

A motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...

Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's "Carmilla" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.

Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Narratives whether written, visual or poetic epics generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic the core, so to speak story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

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

Answer:
I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...

The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.

Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).

The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.

The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.

Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.

If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.

Enjoy!