Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It's been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used "Wall Street" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.

Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.

Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: ...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have recently seen this movie due to Jake's recent success with Brokeback Mountain. I figured I would see the movies that I missed. I had no expectations going into the film so was astounded that I had missed this movie at all. It's a gripping father and son tale, and it is also an underdog story. I even shed a tear at the finale of this wonderful tale. This movie appeals to all ages. The only reason I give it a 9 out of 10 is that it slows down a little in the middle, but it comes back strong in the end. The acting was great, the story was magnificent, and the cinematography was captivating given the setting of the film. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Rent it, buy it, watch it, LOVE IT! I know I did!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then "2001" would suck and so would "Forest Gump" and "Silence of the Lambs".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Get this film if at all possible. You will find a really good performance by Barbara Bach, beautiful cinematography of a stately (and incredibly clean) but creepy old house, and an unexpected virtuoso performance by "The Unseen". I picked up a used copy of this film because I was interested in seeing more of Bach, whom I'd just viewed in "The Spy Who Loved Me." I love really classically beautiful actresses and appreciate them even more if they can act a little. So: we start with a nice fresh premise. TV reporter Bach walks out on boyfriend and goes to cover a festival in a California town, Solvang, that celebrates its Swedish ancestry by putting on a big folk festival. She brings along a camerawoman, who happens to be her sister, and another associate. (The late Karen Lamm plays Bach's sister, and if you know who the celebrities are that each of these ladies is married to, it is just too funny watching Bach (Mrs. Ringo Starr) and Lamm (Mrs. Dennis Wilson) going down the street having a sisterly quarrel.)) Anyway Bach's disgruntled beau follows her to Solvang, as he's not done arguing with her. There's a lot of feeling still between them but she doesn't wanna watch him tear himself up anymore about his down-the-drain football career. The ladies arrive in Solvang to do the assignment for their station, only to find their reservations were given away to someone else. (Maybe to Bach's boyfriend, because think of it where's he gonna stay?). The gals ask around but there is just nowhere to go. Mistakenly trying to get into an old hotel which now serves only as a museum, they catch the interest of proprietor Mr. Keller (the late Sidney Lassick), who decides to be a gentleman and lodge them at his home, insisting his wife will be happy to receive them. Oh no! Next thing we know Keller is making a whispered phone call to his wife, warning her that company's coming and threatening that she'd better play along. Trouble in paradise! The ladies are eager to settle in and get back to Solvang to shoot footage and interview Swedes, but one of the girls doesn't feel good. Bach and Lamm leave her behind, wondering to themselves about Mrs. Keller (played heartbreakingly by pretty Lelia Goldoni) who looks like she just lost her best pal. Speaking of which under-the-weather Vicki slips off her clothes and gets into a nice hot tub, not realizing that Keller has crept into her room to inspect the keyhole. She hears him, thinks he's come to deliver linen, and calls out her thanks. Lassick did a great job in this scene expressing the anguish of a fat old peeping tom who didn't get a long enough look. After he's left, poor Vicki tumbles into bed for a nap but gets yanked out of it real fast (in a really decent, frightening round of action) by something BIG that has apparently crept up through a grille on the floor The Unseen! Lamm comes home next (Bach is out finishing an argument with her beau) and can't find anyone in the house. She knocks over a plate of fruit in the kitchen, and, on hands and knees to collect it, her hair and fashionable scarf sway temptingly over the black floor grille attracting The Unseen again! Well, at about the time poor Lamm is getting her quietus in the kitchen, we do a flashback into Mr. Keller's past and get the full story of what his sick, sadistic background really is and why his wife doesn't smile much. Bach finally gets home and wants to know where her friends are. Meanwhile, Lassick has been apprised of the afternoon's carnage by his weeping wife and decides he can't let Bach off the premises to reveal the secret of his home. He tempts her down into the basement where the last act of the Keller family tragedy finally opens to all of us.

I cannot say enough for Stephen Furst, whom I'd never seen before; it's obvious that he did his homework for this role, studying the methods of communication and expression of the brain damaged; Bach and Goldoni, each in their diverse way, just give the movie luster. Not only that, but movie winds up with a satisfying resolution. No stupid cheap tricks, eyeball-rolling dialog or pathetically cut corners... A real treat for your collection.