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

Answer: I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.

What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.

However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.

And please forgive me for my bad English
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of 'Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's 'grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a Cesar award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played 'Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poire and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and deja-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a 'brainless moment'! 2/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: (No need to recap the plot, since others have done so already.)

It's understandable that many viewers find fault with the film, raised as we are with the slam-bang sensurround of today's cineplex experience. Against that background, a movie like Ecstasy appears to have wandered in from another planet. I think there are several worthwhile reasons why.

Most importantly, the film unfolds poetically, as the camera pans slowly over surrounding hills, trees, clouds, etc., providing a serene and lyrical sense of a natural world that integrates the man and woman into its fold. Together these reveal a style and dimension almost totally missing from today's technology-driven cinema, where rapid-fire editing works to divert audience attention and not to concentrate it. Additionally, the story is conveyed by eye and not by ear, with almost no dialogue to explain what's happening. This amounts to another extreme departure from today's very literal fare, where visuals only seem to count when they excite the audience. But perhaps most unsettling-- the movie is sometimes eerily quiet, not in the sense that silent films are quiet since we expect them to be. But in the sense that the characters seldom speak when we expect them to. Thus, the burden of the story is shared between the film-maker and the viewer. The former must choose his visuals artfully so as to convey the narrative, while the latter must think about those visuals, since they're not going to be explained.

None of this is intended to belittle today's film-making. It's simply to point out that a movie like Machaty's comes out of a very different aesthetic from the one we have today. I don't claim either to be any better or worse. However, I do claim that Ecstasy represents a perspective sorely missing from today's movie-going experience, where such 'contemplative values are routinely dismissed as slow and boring.

The film itself is no masterpiece, though at times it reaches artistic heights, as in the beautifully composed beer-garden scene with its final crane shot rising to reveal the exquisite tableau below. The slow pans of the countryside with its pantheistic celebration of life, nature, and regeneration are also wonderfully expressed. These are the kind of scenes that don't overwhelm you, but instead-- given half-a chance-- accumulate quietly into an experience as memorable in its own way as the spine-tingling variety of a "Jaws".

On the other hand, the film is sometimes heavy-handed, as when Machaty piles on the imagery, particularly in the final, ode-to-labor sequence. It's hard to know what to make of this rather disruptive presence. Perhaps the symbolism has to do with the heroic dimension that hard work holds for the love-lorn hero and people in general-- a theme then being promoted by the influential Soviet cinema. Still, its presence here is rather tediously over-done.

Anyhow, I've got to admit that I tuned in initially to see the gorgeous Hedy LaMarr in the buff. But now I have to admit that in the process I also got a lot more than just a peek-a-boo romp in the woods.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The subject is certainly compelling: a group of people take their love of gaming one step further by creating a fake medieval world full of warriors, kings, princes and castles. Wargaming is an interesting phenomena that delves into our collective need to "escape" from reality and the sometimes mundaneness of our existence -- something almost everyone can relate to. The characters are the predictable mix of Lord of the Rings nerds and Star Trek enthusiasts. That's enough to get most people to watch. However, very quickly the film turns into an insider's view of wargaming with an almost stereotypical thumbing of the nose to viewers who "don't get it". The filmmakers seem to take the subject of wargaming, and this particular one, waaaaay too seriously rather than once in awhile recognizing the humor and fun in making a film about adults drssing up in medieval gear and pounding each other with foam swords. It's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't sit on their computer for 7-10 hours a day playing games or desiging the latest star destroyer to understand what the characters are talking about and why we should even care. However, the filmmakers themselves seem not to care choosing to focus solely on the subject of the game itself rather than building a strong narrative with a clear story that anyone can understand. Moreover, the characters themselves are not that compelling and you quickly become bored of them: a big no-no when you're trying to keep people's attention for 90 minutes.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
In 1983, Director Brian De Palma set out to make a film about the rise and fall of an American gangster, and that he did-- with the help of a terrific screenplay by Oliver Stone and some impeccable work by an outstanding cast. The result was 'Scarface,' starring Al Pacino in one of his most memorable roles. The story begins in May of 1980, when Castro opened the harbor at Mariel, Cuba, to allow Cuban nationals to join their families in the United States. 125,000 left Cuba at that time, for the greener pastures of freedom in America, and most were honest, hard-working people, thankful for the opportunity they had been granted. But not all. Among the 'Marielitos' who streamed into Florida, approximately 25,000 had criminal records and were nothing less than the dregs of Cuba's jails-- criminals considered beyond redemption, who Castro had merely wanted to be rid of. And they, too, saw America as a land of opportunity, even as Al Capone had considered Chicago some fifty years earlier. And among the most ambitious was a man named Tony Montana (Pacino), known to his associates as 'Caracortada.' Scarface.

Now that he was free of the yoke of Communism under which he had grown up, Montana wanted what he felt was coming to him, and he wanted it now; and from the moment he stepped off the boat in Florida, he was determined to have it all. Wealth and power-- that was Montana's dream, and he would get it by doing what he did best, beginning with a favor for a man living in Miami by the name of Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). Lopez, it seems, had a brother in Cuba who had met an untimely end at the hands of one of Castro's goons, a man who, having outlived his usefulness to Castro, had been summarily discarded and was currently being held in 'Little Havana,' along with Montana and all of the Cubans just off the boats, where they awaited their papers from the government that would effect their transition into their new lives. And in short order, Montana sees to it that Lopez's brother has been avenged, and it sets the stage for his own entrance into the underworld of America.

Lopez, a wealthy businessman with the right connections, in return for the favor gets Montana and his friend, Manny (Steven Bauer), released from the holding camp, and puts them to work. In his day, Capone may have had bootlegging as a means through which to line his coffers with illicit gain, but Lopez has the modern day equivalent, and it's even more lucrative: Cocaine. Lopez takes Montana under his wing and indoctrinates him into the life, but once he has a taste of it, Montana isn't satisfied with whatever crumbs Lopez sees fit to throw his way, and he sets a course that will take him to where he wants to be: At the 'top.' With a cold-blooded, iron will, Montana decides he'll do whatever it takes to get there, no matter what the cost. but before it's over, he will realize the price for his dream, and he'll pay it; but for a brief moment, perhaps he will know what it's like to be The Man. And he will also know whether or not it was worth it.

In step with De Palma's vision, Pacino plays Montana larger-than-life, and he does it beautifully. From the accent he affects (which he researched thoroughly to make sure he got it right-- and he did), to the body language and the attitude, he's got it all, and it makes Montana convincing and very real. What he brings to the role is nuance and style, in a way that few actors (De Niro would be one) can. This is definitely not a character that is sympathetic in any way, nor is there anything about Montana that you can readily relate to on a personal level; but Pacino's screen presence is so strong that it makes him a thoroughly engrossing character, even though it's hard to become emotionally involved with him. It's quite simply a dynamic, memorable performance.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a solid performance, as well, in the role that put her on the path to stardom. As Elvira, the woman who becomes an integral part of Montana's dream, Pfeiffer is subtle and understated, giving that sense of something going on underneath, while affecting a rather cold and distant exterior countenance. She, like Pacino, definitely makes her presence felt as she fairly glides across the screen with a stoic, enigmatic and sultry demeanor.

The supporting cast includes Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Sosa) and Harris Yulin (Bernstein). An excellent precursor to the more recent and highly acclaimed 'Traffic,' and 'Blow,' and well as having a climactic scene reminiscent of Peckinpah's 'The Wild Bunch,' De Palma's 'Scarface,' originally panned by critics, has since been cited by many as being the definitive American gangster saga. Much of the violence is implied rather than graphic, but this film still has an edge of realism to it that many may find somewhat disturbing. But if you stay with it, there is a lesson to be learned in the end. And like many lessons in life, the most valuable are often the hardest to take at the time. But the reward is always worth it, and that's the way it is with this film. I rate this one 8/10.