Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? "Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!"

This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: First of all, I apologize for my English.

Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.

Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie.

Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie.

I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie.

Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs.

Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...

Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian.

And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).

I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.

Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
The DVD for "Danaza Macabra" (Castle of Blood) is very odd. That's because parts of the film are in French with subtitles and the rest is dubbed into English from the French. Sometimes, characters switched between the two in the middle of a scene! When I tried to get the film to be JUST subtitled or just dubbed, it made no difference! Odd, but still watchable.

The story purports to be based on a Poe story, though I can't recall which one. In fact, the character of Poe appears in the beginning and end of the film--though it didn't look especially like him.

A rich man makes a bet with a guy down on his luck that he cannot stay the entire night in a manner home. It seems like an easy bet to win--even if the house is very creepy. However, it can't be that easy, as the rich guy says that all those who previously took the bet died--yet this fool STILL wants to make the wager! While in the home, he meets lovely Barbara Steele within and falls madly for her. Later, however, he learns that she died more than a decade earlier! How can this be?! I could tell you more about the plot but don't want to spoil any of the suspense. See it for yourself to find out the rest of the story.

This film gets very high marks for creating a creepy atmosphere. The house, black & white cinematography and music work together to make for a scary looking film. As for the plot, it's interesting--especially because there are many twists and turns--so many that you are wondering just who is and who isn't among the undead by the end of the film.

The only negative is that I felt sorry for the poor snake that was needlessly killed. Crazy as it might sound, I felt sorry for it and it hardly seemed necessary.

Also, parents may want to know that towards the end there is a bit of nudity. A strikingly beautiful woman appears topless, but it's hardly necessary for the plot.