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

Answer: One of the greatest westerns of all time! But this one, unlike many others, does not deal with the nature, horses, shootouts, etc., but instead deals with one rifle, the Winchester '73, and how this one rifle effects others and how they effect it. A rifle is not a living, breathing, human being, right? You may be inclined to believe that it is not. But it seems to have a mind of its own, for two very similar reasons: it gets back to its rightful owner in the end, even though that throughout the rest of the picture, its unthoughtful "owners" do their best to make sure it does not, and it never seems to be content until it gets back to its original owner, so, coincidentally, the unthoughtful "owners" always seem to lose it somehow or get killed trying to protect and keep it, until it gets back to James Stewart, then it is "content". But, not every one of the owners deserves to have it. Stewart does, of course, since he won it. McNally does not, since he had to be a dirty thief and steal it. Drake definitely does not, because he would probably lose it in some poker game, and besides, Drake is too cowardly to fight, so why should he have a one-of-a-kind rifle if he will not even use it? Duryea does not, because he is just a chuckling maniac, and we all know that chuckling maniacs do not deserve guns. This film has a sort of noir edge that only Westerns can have, such as the Ox-Bow Incident. Westerns have their own type of noir, much different than the 30's and 40's Bogart films. It is, hands-down, the best one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns, even though my personal favorite is "Bend of the River". The other four became much different than this one. I do not think it a coincidence to see that the other four were color, and this is black and white. This is because of the noir edge. All five films had the revenge and the dark past on Stewart's part play into the film, to the point where this is not just Stewart's dark side, but also actually a sort of character, not one to be listed in the credits, but one that you can only recognize and know that it is there, always present. However, this one, not just on revenge and the dark past, but also in terms of supreme danger, and characters that were very different than Stewart make it surpass the other four in all aspects. But Stewart never crosses the line. He does, however, walk the line between light and dark. This is why black and white played such an integral part in the film. They could have all been black and white, or they could have all been color. But this one is in black and white, and the other four are in color, and there is a very good reason for that.

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

Answer: If ever anyone queries whether cinema is an art form, you can do worse than pointing them at this movie.

Quite simply it is the perfect combination of story, script, actors and cinematography ever committed to celluloid.

The story of a doomed bomber pilot who is missed by his heavenly conductor in the English fog during the second world war, and his subsequent brushes with the celestial authorities (or is it in his head) is played with panache by David Niven and Kim Hunter and is incredibly touching - especially in the opening scenes when the doomed pilot (Niven) describes his plight to the ground radio operator (Hunter).

The sense of otherworldliness is heightened by Jack Cardiff's photography and the incredible production designs.

The supreme touches extend to the heaven shots appearing in black and white and earthbound scenes presented in Technicolour - this is even mentioned by the celestial conductor (a fantastic Marius Goring).

Not only a highpoint in British cinema, but a highpoint in cinema, period.

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

Answer:
"Antwone Fisher" tells of a young black U.S. Navy enlisted man and product of childhood abuse and neglect (Luke) whose hostility toward others gets him a stint with the base shrink (Washington) leading to introspection, self appraisal, and a return to his roots. Pat, sanitized, and sentimental, "Antwone Fisher" is a solid feel-good flick about the reconciliation of past regrets and closure. Good old Hollywood style entertainment family values entertainment with just a hint of corn. (B)