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

Answer: I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog.

Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon.

Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.

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

Answer: In this forgettable trifle, the 40-ish Norma Shearer plays a fluttery, girlish socialite in Monte Carlo, caught in a tussle between George Sanders and Robert Taylor. It would be tempting to blame this movie's failure on the dull, talky script, or director George Cukor, who never seems interested in livening up the film's generally comatose state. Mostly, though, it's the fault of Shearer herself, who desperately wanted to keep playing "young" parts as long as she could get away with it. Inadvertently, this makes "Her Cardboard Lover" a bizarre monument to an aging woman's vanity.

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

Answer: In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10

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

Answer:
Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the "regents" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the "right" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings.