Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihaescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminica la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.

If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

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

Answer: This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.

The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.

I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.

JDD - 14 December 2008
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.

FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.

But if you insist on reading, consider:

Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.

Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.

By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.

That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you:

Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.

Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This film pulls you in from the get-go because it grabs our attention by acknowledging, yeah, that this story is opening with a cliche a funeral.

In hands other than Judi's I wouldn't have given it an 8 as this material has been done over and over again: The great reunion of a once famous, pick one please, team, army platoon, theatre group, singers, band.

But this movie never stoops to cheap sentimentalization, and when you think it is going to it swoops off in another direction. A case in point is the flowers that are sent by an admirer to Judi.

The band members are an interesting group and ride above the cliches too. One is in jail, one has found religion, one is an alkie, and one has sunk into dementia. But the joie de vivre rediscovered by Judi, ignited by her granddaughter's interest, carries us along and makes us overlook the sometimes simplistic nature of the plot.

The cast are a who's who of talent, Leslie Caron, the incomparable jazzist Cleo Laine with her amazing high notes, a last performance from Joan Sims, brava Joan, a cute as a button flirtatious Ian Holm having a ball, and Olympia Dukakis as a money-grabbing divorcee living in the highlands of Scotland with her ghillie and her whiskey, The closing scene is standard Hollywoodland fare, the judgmental children of the star converted to fun-loving supporters, the old lovers reunited, the youngsters swept up in the old timers' music. Life should be this simple. But I would watch it again, and intend to, with my own granddaughter. For in the right hands, sometimes one just loves these brazen old cliches. 8 out of 10.