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

A: Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.

When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?

A beautiful fraternal love story.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."

As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derriere). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.

Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.

I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a "Well, I never..." out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.

Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.

Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.

The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.

This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
We all know what's like when we have a bad day at the office, right? Well, this Neil Simon comedy looks at what it's like when you have the worst of all days just trying to get to the office. Sometimes, it's just not worth going, know what I mean? And, sometimes, it's just not worth doing something when it's already been done before, in 1970, with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis... and much better also.

It's not that Steve Martin is a lousy comedian or wrong for the role as the harried and stressed advertising exec; quite to the contrary, on both counts. And, it's not that Goldie Hawn is equally inept either; her work has been consistently good, if not great, ever since I first saw her in TV's Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In of the 1960s.

The problem with this movie is that it's not about the hapless couple at all: it's really about New York and why everybody should come to New York to live and love their lives away in married bliss sort of in the greatest city in the world. That's if you're a New Yorker...

Look, the 1970 movie is still an excellent comedy that realistically explored all the things that can go wrong when you take a trip somewhere, and included most of the situations and sight gags that you can imagine about what can happen to you in a strange environment. This 1999 version unfortunately goes off into gratuitous tangents specifically for an audience these days that expects or wants to see excess. For example, not content with the star appeal of the main players, there is a cameo (relatively long also) from Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, as we all know. What Giuliani bucking for President even then? Worse a walking talking advertisement for the kinder face of New York.

And then we have John Cleese, reprising his role as Basil Fawlty but this time, as a prancing cross-dresser also once again browbeating hotel staff, sycophantically sucking up to rich customers and generally making himself look like the idiot he is, in this role. And, in the process, doing great damage to the memory of Fawlty Towers, arguably the best British comedy series, bar none...

Why was this 1999 movie made? In the 1970s, New York was a dying city, in many ways. It was almost literally bankrupt. So, when made in 1970, that was the city you saw: grim, dark, moody, unsettling and not the place that the harassed couple finally chose for their new life together in the Big Smoke (as it was then, polluted and all). By 1999, things had gotten better: glitz was back, New York was thriving, it was the Big Apple, ready for you to bite into, if you had the moxie...

So, naturally, the couple in this second coming find that moxie within themselves and finally join the fabulous fray to continue the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, this movie is truly comic but not for reasons that the producers perhaps envisaged. As much as I like Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in comedy, this movie is a travesty of the much better one made with the great Jack Lemmon. If you've seen the latter, then definitely don't bother with this one.