Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: As a massive fan of fantasy in general, and of the works of Neil Gaiman *in particular*, I've been looking forward to this film so avidly, so hungrily and with such a bittersweet mixture of anticipation and fear of disappointment that I can scarcely believe it's finally here. And you know what? I needn't have feared, the film version is bl**dy awesome. Different from the book, but in a good way - less whimsical, more comical, still deeply sweet and enchanting.

The special effects are absolutely spot-on, and make magic feel a natural and proper part of the world of Wall without being overtly spectacular and intrusive.

Proper attention has been paid to storytelling and pacing, and the casting in the main is a triumph, with the ghostly Princes (whose roll-call read almost as a "Who's Who" of currently cool British comedy - Rupert Everett, David Walliams of Little Britain fame, two of the blokes from Green Wing etc) stealing most of the best lines and pretty much all of the films' funniest moments, which exist in abundance.

In fact, the one minor criticism I have at all of the film is that sometimes the comedy elements become a little OTT, subtlety goes out of the window to the detraction of the main story.... Ricky Gervais' cameo, for example, was far too much just "Ricky Gervais doing his usual David Brent from the Office comedy persona" for my liking, and in my opinion, created an unwelcome and jolting break from the magical spell of the progressing story (though in fairness, from memory I believe the Ferdy character in the original book WAS pretty "Ricky Gervais"-esquire when I think back on it)....

But this is a minor quibble in an otherwise immaculately cast and scripted fairytale with a good mixture of action and romance. Charlie Cox, as the protagonist Tristan, captures the correct mixture of naivety, subtle comedy and self-realisation required for a story like this where a "humble young boy embarks on life-changing quest"; Claire Danes as Yvaine is beautiful, feisty and just ever so slightly alien or ethereal, a perfect interpretation of her stellar role; Robert De Niro, in the cameo every reviewer is talking about, is indeed deserving of praise, rollicking good fun (looks like he's having a ball, too)... and Michelle Pfeiffer is triumphantly cool and nasty as wicked witch Lamia, my favourite performance of the film overall. If you enjoyed her deliciously b!tchy performance in the recent "Hairspray" then you will thoroughly enjoy her in this, too.

So to round off this review: you will laugh, for sure, you will smile, and you may even cry - Stardust is a beautiful, heart-warming fairytale for all the family, with a heart of gold and more sass 'n smarts than is immediately apparent. One of my all-time favourite films is the absolutely fantastic Princess Bride, and Stardust is being readily likened to this with good reason as it is a very similar type of film exploring similar themes and territory.... and just as The Princess Bride remains fresh, smart and funny twenty years after its initial release, I believe that the delicious tongue-in-cheek sweetness of Stardust will be showing up as a family favourite on our televisions (or equivalent future device!) for many years to come.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The word in the summary sums it up d'oh ;) Five girls get lost trying to find their way home, when they stop at a store to get directions they hit a parked car breaking one headlight on it, they flea the scene in fair of getting in trouble but suddenly they see one headlight coming up behind them (ooooh).

From there out everything is screaming, crying and violence when they try to get away from this crazy person who lost it because of a headlight ;), well the screaming and crying pretty much stays through the entire movie (very annoying) The movie is shot, with a cheap camera trying to make it seem "real" or "shocking" I guess, it's just embarrassing and useless though. In lack of anything better to compare it with, "Blair witch style".

The screaming and crying for pretty much the entire movie with crappy sound was over the top annoying, you literally get a headache :)

I'm sorry but this was not scary, only an annoying painful piece of crap movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.