Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.

All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.

1/10
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.

Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.

There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Johnnie To's ELECTION has some cool music on the opening creditsand a nice opening credits' design too, a kaleidoscope of Chinese characters and those Asian mobsters solemnly taking an oath or uttering some sacred stuff; as a matter of fact the whole flick is nicely scored. I have found about To from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist and was quite eager to see a To movie. The one with which I began, ELECTION, is exciting and interesting, and only moderately violent by nowadays standardsmoderately and also essentially violent; the story of an Asian godfather's scheming, it uses a puzzle play of elements, violent facts from the mobsters' lives, the race for the scepter, true details, and as with Coppola we are expected to believe that some of the morally glamorized mobsters are entitled and nice and likable. The performances are reasonably amusing and colorful.

ELECTION is well made in the enjoyable, somewhat careless style of the Hong Kong fare; the ending is bitter, true, straight and will scare the kids.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.

The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care.

Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: As a big fan of gorilla movies in general, I anticipated that this one would be great - and as for the gorilla effects, They were quite good, however - that is the only thing I can write about this flop. The film claims to be based on a true story but in effect, it does not even come close to what actually happened to "Buddy" - who in real life, was the famous Gargantua, sold to Ringling Bros. by our supposed "heroic" Gertrude Lintz, known by many animal enthusiasts as a woman who hardly had her animals' welfare in the best interest. As far as Buddy being portrayed as becoming aggressive, this was total fiction and at no time did the gorilla, in real life, resort to such behavior. buddy did, in fact, escape his wooden crate (not a plush cage room as depicted in movie) during a storm, to seek shelter and comfort in the house, which frightened Gertrude Lintz into selling him. No, Buddy was not released into a gorilla family surrounded by lush trees in a zoological paradise - he was abandoned in a wooden crate, deep in the back of a garage for some time with only a single light bulb for comfort and then sold to the circus - where he actually lived a better life having peanuts thrown at him until he died (historically the oldest living gorilla on record, by the way) before a show in Miami. Notice also, in the film, how Buddy grows older but the chimpanzees never age. (The chimps, by the way, were not raised simultaneously with other animals, including Buddy, as portrayed in the film)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't."