An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I love this movie like no other. Another time I will try to explain its virtues to the uninitiated, but for the moment let me quote a few of pieces the remarkable dialogue, which, please remember, is all tongue in cheek. Aussies and Poms will understand, everyone else-well?

(title song lyric)"he can sink a beer, he can pick a queer, in his latest double-breasted Bondi gear."

(another song lyric) "All pommies are bastards, bastards, or worse, and England is the a**e-hole of the universe."

(during a television interview on an "arty program"): Mr Mackenzie what artists have impressed you most since you've been in England? (Barry's response)Flamin' bull-artists!

(while chatting up a naive young pom girl): Mr Mackenzie, I suppose you have hordes of Aboriginal servants back in Australia? (Barry's response) Abos? I've never seen an Abo in me life. Mum does most of the solid yacca (ie hard work) round our place.

This is just a taste of the hilarious farce of this bonser Aussie flick. If you can get a copy of it, watch and enjoy.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.

But now on to the movie...

I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a "MOVIE" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.

That's my two cents.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.

Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.

Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why?

What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..

Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?

Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.

Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I being of Puertorican descent, had mixed fillings about this "documentary". First I was offended that Ms. Perez compared Senor Campos to Che Guevarra. Also just a point of fact,Mr. John Leguzaimo is not of Puertorican descent.His parents came from Columbia. Whomever did research on this was not very accurate. I feel that the future of our race rests on education. This message should have been resounding throughout this film, Education is our road to freedom and power I think any future endeavors of this production team should make this their focus.In my opinion,this film swayed toward an anti-American sentiment.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Fans of goremeister Herschell Gordon Lewis should look elsewhere if they are picking up this film for his usual buckets of blood being sloshed about, for there is precious little in the way of bloodletting in this film. Instead, Lewis decides to try and tell the bizarre story, relying on bargain-basement special effects on a budget which could have probably been doubled if the cast had turned out their pockets for change one day. Oddly enough, while cheap and very poorly acted (especially by McCabe as Mitchell), the total outlandishness of the plot keeps attention throughout. Imagine what this film could have been like with a decent budget! Overall, it strains for champagne tastes on a beer budget.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliche-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.