Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: For Romance's sake, as a married man. The following two films are recommended.

1. Brief Encounter by David Lean (1945), UK

Well, when a woman goes to a railway station, something may happen. And it happened! How she longed to be there, in a little tavern waiting for the man of her dreams. But she was married... the man was a stranger to the fantasizing woman

2. Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun by Fei Mu (1948), China

Well, when a woman goes to the market to buy fish, grocery and medicine, passing through the ruins of an ancient wall in a small town, there is much to think about, about the melancholy of her life, her sick husband in self-pity and lack of future...Just when a jubilant young doctor arrived, something happened... the doctor was a high school honey of the fantasizing woman

In both movies, from great directors of UK and China, the passion vs restraint was so intense, yet in the end the intimate feelings had not developed into any physical contacts. That leaves you with a great after-taste, sniffing it intensely without biting it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: ... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I had never heard of this flick despite the connection to George Clooney (whose company produced and he appears in a very funny supporting bit) and his Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh. Worse, we picked this up in a discount bin for $4.99 (Canadian dollars at that!) What a grand and pleasant surprise. But then I'm of the opinion that if William H. Macy is in it you can't be disappointed. This was very reminiscent of those Ealing comedies from England in the 1950s. OK, with more profanity. This is an oddball and at times gut-splittingly funny film. The actual heist made me laugh so hard I was crying. Perhaps the funniest use of underpants in movie history. Maybe it was the low expectations I had going in but I watched with a group of people and we had a blast. Best $5 I've spent in ages.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: In all my 60 years of age, I have learned that when we watch a movie there is an identification (whether we want it or not) implicit with an specific character.

Sometimes because the character executes certain gesture, sometimes because the character speaks determinate word, or sentence that we use or that we would like to use in determinate situation.

The movie in question, should be seen by this point of view. Who now find a parking space in a mall,downtown, or in the street - taken by a car whose driver can't remember to think that he is not the only driver in the world?

Who hasn't the urge to "rubber out" the ill mannered spat?

Haven said that I ask: - Did you identify with DELLA (played by Kim Bassinger)? If your answer is: YES!, then try not to find absurd details comparatively with life's reality in the movie, because you'll certainly find the movie ridiculous.

Abstractions made, you will see that the movie has moments of surprise, such as: 1- In the sequence in which Della grabs the box of tools in the trunk (does that box contains a gun, and does she haves the guts to use it?); 2- In the sequence in which Terry dies whilst falling; 3- In the sequence in which Della gets attracted by Chuckie's "mermaid's call".

If you have already seen the movie, or if are planning seeing, keep in mind that there are "realistic" movies, "fiction" movies, "political" movies, and movies in which you can "wash your soul" To exemplify the last one, we can quote: "Tropa de Elite".

According to newspaper's , there was unanimous applause when BOPE officials take certain attitudes. (As I have seen the movie in DVD, I could not ascertain the audience's reaction)

As for the direction part (Susan Monford), interpretations (Kim Bassinger, Lukas Haas, Craig Scheffer, etc. Edition (William M. Anderson 'Dead Poets Society', 'Green Card' exceptional edition, 'Robocop 2', etc. It is well situated in context. In a scale of 1(Awful) to 10(Master Piece), I rate "When She Was Out" a 7(Regular).
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
The book on which this movie is based was excellent; it took a while to come to grips with Houellebecq's unconventional style but once I understood the mood behind the writing I was completely drawn into the author's world of sadness. In fact, no other book has affected me so much. This is not necessarily a good thing - it elucidated my own personal struggle and has made the futility of my own struggle harder to accept. Houellebecq's insights are masterfully captured by Harel and the hero's apathy and indifference to a world which has rejected him is perfectly portrayed. This is a movie which reveals today's society for the lowly male in all its horror. Hopefully, things will change in the future but for the present we have to accept the rat-race as shown in this movie. It's probably best that Harel or Houellebecq do not create a work of genius like this again. One is enough for any man.