Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.

The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.

Good acting, though. Watchable.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.

The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, and worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused such a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.

With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.

I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Buster absolutely shines in this episode, which is the only vehicle I've seen towards the end of the career that allowed him to do the physical (and silent!) comedy that made him famous. It's still a shock to hear his gravelly voice in the talkie sequences - his voice is about the only thing I don't care for, as far as Buster is concerned - but his ability to take a pratfall is still unparalleled. He even repeats some of the gags used in his early two-reelers with Roscoe Arbuckle.

My deepest gratitude to Rod Serling for presenting us with this episode, and for giving Buster's genius full scope. He didn't have much time (one episode) to do it in, but this is a touching tribute to Hollywood's greatest genius.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.

Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.

Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.

What a sad waste.