Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.

I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.

It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)

The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.

The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.

Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.

I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.

Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliche slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.

Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).

To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!

Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What a pathetic movie.

I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.

Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.

Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike "Yes", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.

Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.

But the film's title is "Ghosts", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Francoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Francoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.

Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.

And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. "Marie is dead," concludes Francoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a "nina", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.

The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.

This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.

Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.

I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.

7/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense?