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

Answer: Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.

Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.

If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.

From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.

The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.

I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.

Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Airport '77 starts as a brand new luxury 747 plane is loaded up with valuable paintings & such belonging to rich businessman Philip Stevens (James Stewart) who is flying them & a bunch of VIP's to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum, also on board is Stevens daughter Julie (Kathleen Quinlan) & her son. The luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid-air the plane is hi-jacked by the co-pilot Chambers (Robert Foxworth) & his two accomplice's Banker (Monte Markham) & Wilson (Michael Pataki) who knock the passengers & crew out with sleeping gas, they plan to steal the valuable cargo & land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent Chambers almost hits an oil rig in the Ocean & loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. With air in short supply, water leaking in & having flown over 200 miles off course the problems mount for the survivor's as they await help with time fast running out...

Also known under the slightly different tile Airport 1977 this second sequel to the smash-hit disaster thriller Airport (1970) was directed by Jerry Jameson & while once again like it's predecessors I can't say Airport '77 is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons. Out of the three Airport films I have seen so far I actually liked this one the best, just. It has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid-air hi-jacking & then the crashing (didn't he see the oil rig?) & sinking of the 747 (maybe the makers were trying to cross the original Airport with another popular disaster flick of the period The Poseidon Adventure (1972)) & submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside, either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the 747 floods or if any of the doors are opened & it's a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character's, dull dialogue, lethargic set-pieces & a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity. While the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for 108 odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks & there's not as much urgency as I thought there should have been. Even when the Navy become involved things don't pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships & helicopters flying about but there's just something lacking here. George Kennedy as the jinxed airline worker Joe Patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes & barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background.

The home video & theatrical version of Airport '77 run 108 minutes while the US TV versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence, many more scenes with George Kennedy as Patroni, flashbacks to flesh out character's, longer rescue scenes & the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator. While I would like to see this extra footage I am not sure I could sit through a near three hour cut of Airport '77. As expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions & interior design choices, I will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren't great either. Along with the other two Airport sequels this takes pride of place in the Razzie Award's Hall of Shame although I can think of lots of worse films than this so I reckon that's a little harsh. The action scenes are a little dull unfortunately, the pace is slow & not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as I reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly.

The production values are alright if nothing spectacular. The acting isn't great, two time Oscar winner Jack Lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this, one time Oscar winner James Stewart looks old & frail, also one time Oscar winner Lee Grant looks drunk while Sir Christopher Lee is given little to do & there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too.

Airport '77 is the most disaster orientated of the three Airport films so far & I liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly, the production & bland direction doesn't help though & a film about a sunken plane just shouldn't be this boring or lethargic. Followed by The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979).