Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Had I been familiar with the stage production of Guys and Dolls before seeing the movie, I might not be as fond of it as I am. Although in all fairness, I would probably still like the film production better because of my general adoration of both Brando (for his acting) and Sinatra (for his voice, although he is quite the actor as well, see The Manchurian Candidate or From Here to Eternity.)

As for some of the other reviewers' statements about the songs, I have the Broadway soundtrack and though Isabel Bingley's voice outshines that of Jean Simmons, it is not more pleasant. I find it to have a rather shrill quality. Jean Simmons' voice is much more realistic, though admittedly, that is not always a huge concern in musicals. Also the only time I particularly noticed Marlon Brando's particularly weak vocal register was during his rendition of "Luck Be A Lady" and only there because I was previously familiar with Sinatra's version. I also find Vivian Blaine's voice to be much more pleasing in the movie than it is on Broadway. And Sinatra's voice alone would be able to redeem the failings of all the others, if they indeed were in need of redemption. (They weren't) It is infinitely better than Sam Levene's, particularly in my favorite song, 'Sue Me'.

Also, the complaint that lots of songs were omitted from the movie for inferior songs, I beg to differ. 'A Bushel and a Peck' is hardly a gem and the song that replaced it, 'Pet Me Poppa" and its accompanying performance is more Hot Box material. I personally do not care for 'Marry the Man Today' at all and rejoice that it was not included in the movie. I adore 'I've Never Been In Love Before', and though it was not sung in the movie, the instrumental version can be heard when Nathan is in Adelaide's dressing room. The song 'A Woman In Love'expresses the same sentiment equally well and probably in a range that both of the stars could more capably reach. And the movie wouldn't be the same without the song 'Adelaide', not included on Broadway. In fact, if the movie soundtrack were available for sale, I'd recommend purchasing it instead of the Broadway.

Though I have not seen the original production, I cannot imagine that the acting would be superior to that of the movie's lead actors.

The important fact is that the story is as charming as ever and the acting and songs do not make it any less so.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: An American in Paris was, in many ways, the ultimate mixture of art and Hollywood musical. Made at the height of MGM's powers as a musical powerhouse, the film features memorable music from the Gershwins, who rightly have been called the 20th Century's equivalent of Beethoven and Mozart.

Gene Kelly was also at the height of his powers in this film, though it could be rightly argued that this movie was just the warm-up for his best work in Singin' in the Rain (1952). The two films are actually closely linked. Aside from the Arthur Freed connection, the Broadway Melody segment in "Rain" owes its existence to the incredible American in Paris Ballet sequence in this film. This might well have been the only time a dance number is specially mentioned in the opening credits of the film. And it deserved to be, as it showcases Gene Kelly's skills as a dancer and choreographer to their utmost degree.

The film's cast is uniformly excellent. Leslie Caron, incredibly making her film debut, shows a maturity that makes you think she'd been making films for years. Her introductory dance sequence, and later her work on the Ballet, provides some surprisingly sexy moments rivalled in MGM Musicals only by Cyd Charisse's work in Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon. Oscar Levant is hilarious as Kelly's stoic pal, who gets two of the film's best moments: during the end party sequence (which I will not give away for anyone who hasn't seen the film), and one of the film's most memorable musical numbers which couples his incredible piano skills with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects.

Less memorable are Georges Guetary as Kelly's romantic rival, though he does get a few musical highlights, and Nina Foch as Leslie Caron's romantic rival. The May-December relationship between Kelly's character and Nina's reminded me of the same "kept man" relationship seen between George Peppard and Patricia Neal in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

There are a few elements of the film that made it less satisfying for me than Singin' in the Rain. The Ballet, though lavish and well-produced, doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. Without giving away the plot, the Ballet just happens, with no real rhyme or reason. And unlike the Broadway Melody sequence, it really doesn't have anything to do with the plot -- and in the best musicals, the songs always have some sort of raison d'etre.

Making matters worse is the ending of the film which happens immediately after the Ballet. Although the ending shouldn't be a surprise (this IS an MGM musical, after all), I was hoping for a bit more ... movie after the Ballet ended. It's as if director Vincente Minnelli felt that he couldn't follow the Ballet with anything else. The film literally left me in the lurch.

That negative aside, An American in Paris rightly ranks alongside the best of Hollywood's musicals. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Singin' in the Rain, but it comes close and it remains a testament to Gene Kelly's skills as one of the greatest dancers of all time.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.

It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book instead.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O'Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off

I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn't until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen's stature wouldn't star in a TVM , I mean that's like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn't Bob .... ?

Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you've got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it's not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it

I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it's a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you'd expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them