Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!

Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local "protection" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.

Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.

The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!

There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....

What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).

I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with "mystery helpers" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.

All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.

I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: "When are they going to shut up"? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.

This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.

A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.

Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.

Terrific
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?

I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler.

4/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.

Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.

Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest.