Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:

There is STAR TREK canon -- lots of it. From canon we know the history of the future. Advances in technology, events, places, first contacts with new beings, names, dates, etc.

ENTERPRISE pretty much disregards much of ST canon. An unfortunate fact for long time serious fans. As one, I assumed that the producers would at least take a look at the first few episodes of TOS and retro back from there -- but no.

The phase pistols, like much of the technology, look much more modern than found in TOS. An old style Starfleet laser gun, a slow gold speckle transporter effect -- that's what I expected to see. Also, I did not expect to hear pure beep-based sound effects similar to TNG but far apart from TOS sound effects.

In the earliest view of TOS (the original pilot: THE CAGE), we see a Starfleet with a more formal military aspect -- a bit of old earth Navy. With ENTERPRISE, we see a shocking disregard for rank. There is more military code in the cartoon STAR BLAZERS than in ENTERPRISE.

It is fine that Captain Archer is unsure about the needs of the Universe (quite unlike Kirk who never lacked confidence in his application of human justice), but inside ENTERPRISE everyone seems like an equal. Unprofessional, unsure, more distant from the feel of formal military service than found in any ST series -- and that says a lot!

The casual country music opening theme song heralds the journeys of a family rather than the adventures of an important large military vessel.

ENTERPRISE looks to show us a mostly fun, warm-fuzzy exploration of human relationships rather than take us on a historic, bold, gritty, high-rick exploration of space.

I would have selected Adrian Paul to play the Captain and an older human to be the doctor. Still, I liked the actors for the most part. Linda Park, an outstanding ballroom dancer from Boston College, is sure to develop nicely. The characters making up the crew seem to be thoughtfully created.

ENTERPRISE begins its run stronger than did the past three STAR TREK series. Let's hope for a good future!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.

The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.

Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.

"Gung Ho" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.

You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: this movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.

If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.

It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.

I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.

I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.