Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: There's a certain allure I've always found in discovering the great (semi-) unknown film. These discoveries have nearly always been dramatic films - in my experience, unknown sci-fi, action and horror are unknown for very, very good reasons. I found "High Tide" on video at a junk store, mixed in amongst countless dozens of tapes of varying quality. Of course, that's the only place I would find it, as it is still not on DVD.

While I was watching Judy Davis (as Lillie) throughout the course of this film, I was somehow certain I was watching a great undiscovered performance. Yes, I had previously seen Davis in several small parts - and one starring role in "A Passage to India". But, although she was superb in the aforementioned film, "High Tide" is a different animal entirely. Since recently watching Gillian Armstrong's later film, "Charlotte Gray", I was acutely aware of the sort of actress which impresses her. Davis draws much more than a passing resemblance to Cate Blanchett - in both manner and sensibility.

Judy Davis' performance is stunning, I cannot say enough good things about it. She shares an amazing on-screen relationship with young Claudia Karvan (as Ally), this film's other great actress. There's a lot of drama and quiet humanity they share together, the details of which I won't presume to reveal here (see it for yourself!). There's too much good in "High Tide" to cover in one review. Indeed, I would hardly care to - the film speaks well enough for itself. In conclusion, I would like to praise screenwriter Laura Jones for her stunning dialogue, director Gillian Armstrong for her understanding of actors, and the great Russell Boyd for his brilliant, understated cinematography (please see his work in "Tender Mercies").
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Drew Barrymore was excellent in this film. This role is the type of role you don't normally see Drew play. Her typical role is as a woman looking for love. The storyline is also great.

When Holly is implicated in her mother's murder she moves to L.A. She moves in with a guy who becomes her lover. But her brother who is in a mental prison hospital for what they believe is murder is almost killed she is wrongfully accused. It is then revealed to her lover that she has Multiple Personality Disorder. After that another woman becomes paranoid when she's around her. In the end though, they find out the truth.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.

OK.

Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.

And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.

Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.

What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed "The ultimate vampire horror". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The "story" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.

Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Released in 1965, but clearly shot years earlier, this is an inept little crime melodrama with some inept sexploitation up front. As usual for grindhouse flicks of era, there's a fair amount of undressing and dressing for no reason complemented by lousy music, annoying narration, and awkward editing. The coffee shop scene lays the excruciating groundwork, as we chop back and forth between characters to avoid actually seeing them speak their lines. All we get are reaction shots to the off-screen character's voice! 50s-pretty Misty Ayers strips to her French-cut panties a couple of times before the action gets started. She's accompanied continuously by what is apparently stock music from romantic to western to mother-does-the-dishes, mixed randomly to produce, among other things, the most thrilling cigarette lighting ever captured on film. Watch as he taps it! Watch as he strikes the match! Will he inhale or will he be captured by Apaches? Only time will tell!! The film tells the sordid tale of how Sally gets tricked into working in a whorehouse, falls for a dope, and can't escape. For some reason, we're treated to some of the most bored and boring hookers ever committed to film, literally doing their nails or knitting rather than entertaining the clientele. Some stupendously lame comedy (boozy dame accidentally drinks milk! Har dee har!) and silent film acting doesn't help. This is one of the worst feature films I've ever seen, even on the Something Weird Video marquee. It's really more of a film curiosity for those interested in the history of cinema--very bad cinema.