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

Answer: For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer.

Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work.

It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.

Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again.

The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.

This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.

I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!

The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: From start to finish, I laughed real hard throughout the whole movie. It's amazing that "The Groove Tube" is possibly the granddaddy, yet raunchiest, of all comedic skit movies.This is the way I enjoy watching TV without being bored at flipping channels only to suffer from insomnia! For 73 minutes, the weird, strange humor never stops! Just think of how all this nonsense laughing can help you enjoy life easier! It's way, WAY better than Comedy Central or any prime time show! Do yourself a favor and trash all those soft, lame romantic comedy movies into the wastebasket! Better yet, tell your box office manager you want "The Groove Tube" back on the big screen!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:

This movie is by far one of my favorites. I saw it while in college in the early 90's, and while I couldn't identify with the thirtysomethings in the film, I felt that the story, characters, and movie in general were top notch. To the people who spoke negatively of Indian Summer, feel free to stick to your overblown Armageddon-type movies and leave the movies with a great, wholesome story to those who can appreciate them.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I'll start by apologizing to filmmakers everywhere for using the terms "filmmaker", "film", or "movie" in connection with this, but "criminal" and "crime against humanity" seem a bit harsh.

The writing: pathetic.

The directing: pathetic.

The acting: pathetic.

The cinematography: too inept for words.

The technical skills used to assemble this atrocity: NONE WHATSOEVER.

This lump of waste could hardly be called cinema. The majority of family home movies come closer to earning that distinction than Revenge Quest. No, this is just a 10 car pile-up caught on video.

We'll skip the plot in this review, because there are far too many holes to be covered at once. Let's just say that it stinks worse than the rest of this movie. To call the acting one-dimensional would be giving them credit. What little there is, is atrocious to begin with, and made much worse by the terrible video and editing.

The worst part of this atrocity, though, apart from the plot, would have to be the effects... or rather the disturbing lack thereof. There are no blanks in the guns, no flashpots, and what few sound effects existed were either stock "gun" sounds, or they were generated by mouth (yeah, you read that right). The filmmaker actually had the audacity to record a "shh" sound for the elevator doors; I guess he felt it made them sound more futuristic. This is supposed to be set in the year 2031, after all. That doesn't explain the sounds he created by mouth for the fist-fight scenes, however.

If it wasn't bad enough that the sound quality is terrible (he just used the microphone that was mounted on the video camera, and it shows), the use of stock gun sounds was almost worse than not using any sounds at all. The sound effects stand out from the rest of the soundtrack like a drunken yak in a herd of sheep, and they're just as clumsy. Picture this: The bad guy enters an office building searching for his prey. A lady starts to run in fear. He raises his gun (an uzi), and shakes it. We hear a sound that is clearly not an uzi. The woman runs away from camera, and suddenly a single blood pack (only 1) explodes on her back (looked like she was hit by a paintball), and she falls flat on her face.

Bear in mind that my description does far too much justice to the ineptitude of the actual sequence.

In another sequence, one which almost- but not quite- makes the movie funny enough to watch, takes place in a stairwell. The bad guy chases the good guy and the lady he's protecting down the stairs, shaking his plastic uzi all the way. You may wish to duck; there are badly timed sound effects flying all over the place.

I supposed Alan DeHerrera can't be locked away for conceiving of this train wreck, but he did follow through all the way to editing and releasing it. If there's any justice, there's bound to be some karma out there with his name on it.

Should you decide to watch this lump of industrial waste- and I would strongly advise against it- be sure to watch for the entire scenes lifted nearly verbatim from Bladerunner, and the AM radio that doubles as a walkie-talkie. Try not to focus too hard on the plot; it will only hurt you more if you do.

0 stars of 10. And that's being generous.