Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Awesomely improbable and foolish potboiler that at least has some redeeming, crisp location photography, but it's too unbelievable to generate much in the way of tension. I was kinda hoping that Stanwyck wouldn't make it back in time because, really, she was saddled with the wet, in more ways than one, husband,and she had an idiot child as well..why NOT run off with Meeker? But the nagging question remains..what sort of wood was that pier support made of if a rotten piece of it pulled off didn't float? Stanwyck, always impeccably professional, does the best she could with the material but it's threadbare.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Let me be up-front, I like pulp. However it is like one of these "easier dives" that you see at the Olympics. It has to be marked down a little because it is easier to give a cheap thrill than drag you inside the world of, say, a late medieval painter.

This is only a two hour ghost train ride and while often (or more accurately, most of the time!) ludicrous and unlikely it always goes forward and it always entertains. If not always in the right way. Check out the memorable quotes section for a chuckle.

(However quite why it has been given a "Worst Film" Razzie is baffling - I bet there was a thousand worse films made in 2006, but this film got the treatment because it was viewed as a fashionable victim.)

Head case and popular novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now over in London writing a novel, but death and destruction follow her around like flies follow a horse during a spot of hot weather. God heavens, she can't even visit the toilet without tripping over at least two corpses and I am sure if she opened the closet in her vast penthouse flat one would come tumbling out in grand Hollywood style.

Yes, clearly a very dangerous lady to be circling around (if you like your pulse to be above zero), but is she personally responsible? I mean why would anyone put two-and-two together and start thinking she might be a murderer? Equally her reaction to such accusations seems very casual. However is this just a personality disorder (some form of b/s risk addiction) or further evidence of her guilt?

For reasons I cannot fully understand or explain Stone is assigned to psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) for evaluation rather than taken down the cells following another "lover found dead in mysterious circumstances". Thankfully (for Stone) he is far crazier than any of his patients and has a troubled home/working life of his own. In the blink of an eye the relationship changes from doctor to patient and then it is hard to tell because it all becomes something of a revolving blur.

In to this heady mix comes Roy Washburn (a strange Welsh sounding David Thewlis) who tells the love struck doctor - in his capacity of policeman of many years standing - that the lady in question may be dangerous. I mean, hold the front page. However Glass is now too glassy-eyed to realise or care. Like a dizzy boxer in front of a prime-time Mike Tyson he ripe for the big take-down, however not before finding that Washburn might have a secret or two himself.

Now comes Millena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) a fellow psychiatrist and a rare example (in this film) of someone who isn't barking mad or else a murder suspect. Presuming that she has actually watched the finished film she must look back with nostalgia when her underwear came off with the ease of Stone's - thankfully (for us at least) those days are long gone. Strangely she doesn't think Stone is quite as dangerous as everyone else - or else she doesn't think the script is good enough or her cheque large enough to do any proper acting.

After several laps of the track roughly outlined above it comes to a climax that mixes provincial rep with a cliff-hanger/twist, that while as farcical as the rest of the movie, gives us enough elbowroom for Basic Instinct 3 - highly unlikely this may be at this point in time.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I could see this film is super He didn't surprise to oneself when so that it was taking place for the truth, this way by itself how swigged flight to the which didn't have the place but it is only such an conspiratorial theory, Right?

Very I liked watching this film when I was the child. I am interesting which so that it was if it turned out that such a flight was taking place really, certainly to it for not a belief because it is denying logic and the common sense. Who at healthy senses, sent to kids with space shuttle into the orbit. I very like reading for the subject, American and Soviet space programs. I know a few missions of space shuttles remained provided by CIA with the clause TOP SECRET certainly these are only such my divagations but who knows?
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.

Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jurgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Enjoyed the movie very much. Certainly will leave the audience wanting to know more, and there is truly a lot more historically to find out!

Did the production team fall to the temptation of over dramatization, particularly of the shooting event? There is a ton of interesting accurate material hinted at? Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.

The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York? i.e. Did Princess Victoria really stuff an entire truffle/rissole(?) into her mouth while speaking to the Prime Minister in the company of His Majesty with her mouth full?

'Could never really felt that sympathetic to Victoriain this movie, or indeed in her shoes at all. Yet loved the casting of the principals, whose acting was convincing, so did the script really allow us to really get to know them well? I always felt like a totally detached, uninformed outside observer, much more so than with "Mrs. Brown" or even "The Queen". Yet to be honest I still could not take my eyes off the screen, except that is for some of the more avant-garde camera techniques which were distracting from time to time.