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

Answer: 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' owes more to British noir that its American counterparts. Like Reed's 'The Third Man (1949)' and Dassin's 'Night and the City (1950),' director Elia Kazan chose to film largely on location, capturing the fresh and vibrant decadence of the New Orleans slums. In a decision borrowed from the masters of Italian neorealism, he also hired many non-professional actors for minor roles, lending an air of authenticity to the cityscape. However, any further comparisons with neorealism would be misguided, for 'Panic in the Streets' is pure melodrama, of the best kind. A murdered illegal immigrant, fished out of the bay, is found to be infected with pneumonic plague, a deadly air-borne mutation of bubonic plague, which is transmitted from human-to-human and, untreated, has a mortality rate that approaches 100%. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark), an officer with the U.S. Public Health Service, convinces the doubtful police-chief (Paul Douglas) to undertake a city-wide manhunt for the men responsible for the homicide, lest they also be infected with the illness.

In my younger years, I found Wolfgang Petersen's 'Outbreak (1995)' to be among the most horrifying movies I'd ever seen. That thriller, which owes plenty to 'Panic in the Streets' {working title: "Outbreak"}, terrified me so efficiently because it depicted the ebola virus as both an invisible and invincible killer how does one defend themselves against such a thing? Kazan's film is the first (that I know of) to approach the subject of biological epidemics, though it has difficulty ascribing visual recognition to an enemy that is basically undetectable to the human eye; it instead uses Jack Palance as a human personification of the Plague. Despite his venturing out among the filthy dregs of human society, you never get the sense that Clinton Reed is placing his own life at risk {some viewers have noted that Reed never inoculated himself against the plague, though I think it's safe to assume that he did so at the same time as the morgue staff}. Nevertheless, there's still a strong sense of urgency in the hunt for the infected man's killers, underground street-rats who pollute the sewers with their misdeeds.

In medieval times, when the Black Death (now widely believed to have been bubonic plague) swept across the civilised world, killing a third of Europe's population, many identified the destruction as being the work of the Devil. Jack Palance's character, Blackie, serves effectively as Satan in human form: the angular-jawed thug can occasionally be charming and charismatic, but is always liable to explode into fits of violence; his two hoodlums (played by Guy Thomajan and Zero Mostel), through terror more than anything else, are constantly grovelling at his feet. When one lackey falls ill with fever, Blackie deduces that the man's immigrant cousin must have "brought something in with him" (the irony of his conclusion not passing unnoticed), and so attempts to ascertain what this presumably valuable object must be. He cradles the dying Poldi in his arms, a grotesque display of faux affection that is both pathetic and unsettling. Blackie/Satan is finally stopped not by the authorities, but by the burden of his own infection/evil as he attempts to board a cargo ship, the primary vessel by which the Plague spread across Europe.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.

- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.

- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.

- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.

- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.

I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I wish I had my rental money back from this piece of trash so I could donate it to the Home for Aged Actors. Total rubbish!! Five people watched this movie at the same time and there wasn't one single laugh to be heard, lots of yawning though. Paltrow's a beautiful woman and she was the best thing to look at in the entire so-called comedic movie..