Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Bronte's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.

The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action "fuflo" (a Russian word that means "bull*beep*"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the "Chinese football" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be "Star Wars".

Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.

Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.

This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.

Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I don't know how or why this film has a meager rating on IMDb. This film, accompanied by "I am Curious: Blue" is a masterwork.

The only thing that will let you down in this film is if you don't like the process of film, don't like psychology or if you were expecting hardcore pornographic ramming.

This isn't a film that you will want to watch to unwind; it's a film that you want to see like any other masterpiece, with time, attention and care.

******SUMMARIES, MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER OR TWO*******

The main thing about this film is that it blends the whole film, within a film thing, but it does it in such a way that sometimes you forget that the fictions aren't real.

The film is like many films in one:

1. A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time. Which in a lot of ways are still relevant to today. Interviews done by a young woman named Lena.

2. A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film... he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.

3. The film that Vilgot is making. It's about a young woman named Lena(IE. #2), who is young and very politically active, she is making a documentary (IE. #1.). She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.

The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together. In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.

Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other. "Blue" is not a sequel at all. I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.

Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes. A complete tale.

Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.

Essentially they are parallel films... the same story, told in two different ways.

It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"

I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.

thanks for your time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.