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

Answer: My Take: A tired formula Christmas comedy. The laughs are tired and the talents behind it seem to be too.

I love the holidays as much as the next guy (even if I often have a bad case of the holiday blues), but it seems it's just being a dumping ground for a bunch of Holiday comedies that would be bad movies on any day of the year, but that doesn't make them any less painful during the season. As if we already had enough SANTA CLAUSE movies (three and *gulp* still counting), who wants to see a movie about his brother? In a plot that would be at home with Disney's SANTA CLAUSE franchise (save the occasionally crude humor and Santa's "Little" Helper wearing a short skirt), FRED CLAUS is a one-joke premise that goes on for 116 minutes. Sure, Jolly Ol' Saint Nick has a brother, but where does it go from there?

It's a shame really. FRED CLAUS is blessed with a cast that could have made it an enjoyable Christmastime comedy that will probably melt away along with the snow, but it would have been so much better than this. Vince Vaughn is your typical snob, but we are led to believe he's really the long lost brother of the never-aging Santa (Paul Giamatti), who invites his good ol' brother to visit. Mrs. Claus (Miranda Richardson) is reluctant, and worse, an efficiency expert (Kevin Spacey) has come to keep a watchful eye on Father Christmas, and his THIS close to being shut down. Hah! And guess who plays Santa's mother! Kathy Bates of course. Elizabeth Banks is Santa's Helper Charlene, John Michael Higgins is one of the elves, and Rachel Wiesz plays Fred's girlfriend! SI don't know if I'd praise the casting or to bash it. Here we have some familiar faces to add a touch of quality, but they're given way too little to work with.

As for humor, the best that FRED CLAUS could possibly come up with is Santa's brother being his exact opposite and some joke about a DJ elf. I have to admit I had a few giggles involving Fred attending a group counseling for celebrity brothers (where he is joined by Stephen Baldwin, Roger Clinton and Frank Stallone), but the giggles begin and end there. Worse still, the movie even succumbs into sentimentality that's supposed to make us "feel good" and teach us a lesson about "what Christmas really means". Apparently, what Christmas means to Hollywood is getting as much of our leftover Christmas shopping money as they can.

Rating: ** out of 5.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw this movie with my rock climbing instructor, and we found the entire thing so ridiculous as to be beyond pity. (For one, if Stallone is out free-climbing by himself, there's no need to carry any gear, but I guess those dangling carabiners look sorta "mountain climby," so let's throw them in). For those lobotomized folks who think that Colorado looks anything like the Dolomites in Italy (where the movie was filmed), well the Hollywood moguls have got a lot more ridiculous & foul-smelling stuff for you to swallow.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:

I just bought this movie on DVD and watched it for the first time the other night. I've been a fan of Tolkien's work for about 4 years now, ever since I got out of high school. I didn't grow up on this movie...perhaps my mother kept me away from it. It's definitely not for children. Not that it's bad in a graphic sense, but that the themes would go right over most 10 year olds heads. Overall, the animation was excellent considering this was made in 1978/1979. I thought the story followed the book fairly well in a loose sense. But I am bothered that Bashki didn't just add another 40 minutes or so and tack on the Return of the King parts. That would've made it the ultimate movie. I was bothered by it's abrupt end, and then when I heard Return of the King sucked, I was bothered even more. Too bad it wasn't one great animation film. It might have garnered a higher vote from me. I give it a 7. I can only hope Peter Jackson will do the books justice with the new live action LOTR.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, but I did like this movie.

I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting that bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, but it's a pretty impressive group, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it well done. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, but I honestly didn't know what he would do in the end. Morgan Freeman is as always, the wise mentor figure he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.

Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.

I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, but it was surprisingly well done and I didn't find any of that. Every shooting had a point, it wasn't cliched, pretty solid really.

overall, amazing cast, decent story that kept me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I don't know why it didn't appear in theatres, it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I would say it's worth seeing.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?

What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).

Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.

I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.

But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."

Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.

One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.