An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.

it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I finally got my wish to see this one in a cinema. I'd seen Fritz Lang's film on video some years ago. I'd been hoping that ideal screening conditions would work their magic.

Conditions were ideal at Cinematheque Ontario. Pristine full-length print. Intertitles in the original Gothic-script German with simultaneous English translation, accurate without being too literal. Live piano accompaniment. Ideal.

The film's magic sputtered for a little while but ultimately failed to catch, at least for me.

This film bears no real relation to Wagner's Ring cycle as I already knew but some may not. Wagner had adapted the 13th c. Niebelungenlied to his own purposes. Part I of Fritz Lang's epic -- "Siegfried" -- has much that will be familiar to listeners of Wagner however.

"Kriemhild's Revenge" is the story of Siegfried's wife Kriemhild, her marriage to King Etzel (Attila) the Hun, and her desire for revenge against Hagen and Gunther, the rechristened Nibelungs, for the murder of Siegfried. The spectacular conflagration in this film presumably evolved and expanded in the Wagnerian mythos into his Gotterdammerung, his Twilight of the Gods, and the end of Valhalla. This film remains earthbound.

Most of the film is spectacular. The massive sets rival those of "Cabiria" (1914), which inspired Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916). Their decoration sets a new benchmark in barbaric splendour. There's a huge cast of scarred, mangy Huns and Art Deco Burgundians. And battles. Battles that never seem to end in fact.

Kriemhild is very successful in her plan of revenge. She manages to destroy all around her. Her loyalty to her martyred Siegfried seems not to stem so much from love, or devotion, but from something closer to psychosis. Lady Macbeth cried out, "Unsex me here." She knew she was emotionally unprepared for what she needed to do. But Kriemhild displays no normal human emotions, and certainly nothing one equates with the feminine principle. She is already "top full of direst cruelty", to borrow Shakespeare's phrase, from the outset. Margarethe Schon and her director convey this with a glower. I don't want to exaggerate, but that glower is virtually the only expression ever to "animate" Kriemhild's face. It's the ultimate in one-note performances. It's clearly intentional however, not simply a case of poor acting.

What we have then on offer is a one-dimensional sketch of an avenging Fury. Some might see Kriemhild as an empowered heroine. I just see the film as misogynistic.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A SPECIAL DAY (Ettore Scola - Italy/Canada 1977).

Every once in a while, you come across a film that really touches a nerve. This one offers a very simple premise, almost flawlessly executed in every way and incredibly moving at the same time. It's surprising Ettore Scola's "Una giornate particulare" is relatively unheralded, even hated by some critics. Time Out calls it 'rubbish' and Leonard Maltin, somewhat milder, 'pleasant but trifling.' I disagree, not only because this film is deeply moving, but within its simple story it shows us more insights about daily life in fascist Italy than most films I've seen. The cinematography is distinctly unflashy, even a bit bland, and the storyline straightforward, which might explain the film's relative unpopularity. Considering late '70s audiences weren't exactly spoiled with great Italian films, it's even stranger this one didn't really catch on with the critics.

The film begins with a ten-minute collage of archive footage from Hitler's visit to Italy on may 8th 1938. Set against this background, we first meet Antonietta (Loren), a lonely, love-ridden housewife with six children in a roman apartment building. One day, when her Beo escapes, she meets her neighbour Gabriele (Mastroianni), who seems to be only one in the building not attending the ceremonies. He is well-mannered, cultured and soon she is attracted to him. During the whole film, we hear the fascist rally from the radio of the concierge hollering through the courtyard. Scola playfully uses the camera to make us part of the proceedings. After the opening scene, the camera swanks across the courtyard of the modernist (hypermodern at the time) apartment block, seemingly searching for our main characters, whom we haven't met yet.

Marcello Mastrionani and Sophia Loren are unforgettable in the two leading roles, all the more astonishing since they are cast completely against type. Canadian born John Vernon plays Loren's husband, but he is only on screen in the first and last scene. I figure his voice must have been dubbed, since he's not of Italian descent and never lived there, to my knowledge, so I cannot imagine he speaks Italian. If his voice has been dubbed, I didn't notice at all. On the contrary, he's completely believable as an Italian, even more than the rest of the cast. The story is simple but extremely effective, the performances are outstanding, the ending is just perfect and the framing doesn't come off as overly pretentious but works completely. Don't miss out on this one.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.

Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.

This movie helps set the record straight.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).

Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.