Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.

This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.

No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.

While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.

Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A cheesy, compellingly awful (and NOT in a fun way) C Grade movie. Everything shouts 'amateur', from the crumby script (bizarre premises, limited coherence and predictable endings; the turgid lighting, sound and hand-held wobbly camera angles; the coy and passe sexual inneundo and references; the patchy and unbelievable dialgoue to the Z rate acting. I saw it on DVD and kept hoping Edward Wood would pop out. All is forgiven - your Worst Films are works of art, and more coherent than this twaddle.

But still, preferable to the warbling 'Every night in my dreams I hear you' - are you sure the Titanic crew weren't involved in this on the side?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.

The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I bought this movie for $5 at a used CD store, and I kinda regret it. I'll start by saying I'm a huge fan of cheesy horror flicks. They provide a horribly tacky cheap entertainment. This movie entertained for the first half hour, because it was so bad it could be made fun of in an MST3K style manner quite easily. Then it got boring.

The acting is the scariest part of the movie. While great acting is not to be expected, this was laughably bad and, honestly, provided all of the entertainment that was to be had. This is the plus side to the movie. Where the movie really falters in entertaining is the writing, lighting, and the editing.

This movie provides way too many "What the %$@# is going on?" moments. There are many moments, such as the mother having strange fits at dinner, and then that having absolutely no consequence in the movie. Along the lines of dinner, someone in charge decided it was fun to watch people eat refined food for five minutes straight without dialogue every time a meal was served. During the meals and other inappropriate moments, the scene cuts away to pure darkness outside. Then cuts back in. And speaking of darkness outside, one of the funniest parts of the movie is the climate, where apparently it isn't nighttime unless it's raining. And speaking of darkness, a big problem with the movie is that it's so poorly lit you can't see what's going on half the time, which is more of a frustration than anything. In one of the climactic scenes, you can't even tell what you're supposed to be seeing that's so shocking.

And when it comes to climactic scenes, Unhinged contains one of the worst. I've seen people say "Wow, that surprised me, and that's good." I can say that the big reveal did surprise me, because I didn't see it coming. The reason I didn't see it coming is because it made absolutely no sense. I won't ruin it for you, but I will tell you that my friend and I spent a good twenty minutes rewinding to various parts of the movie to find anything that would have validated that at all, and all we found were more things saying that it wasn't possible.

All in all, this movie is actually better when you watch it with the commentary tracks that make fun of it. I love crap horror movies, but this was too much.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I was absolutely mesmerised by this series from the moment Tom Long walked into shot - the whole 'bad boy' thing, it was just addictive.

The story has you hooked, what will happen next - will Joey get the girl in the end, after doing 5 years in prison, and all that time thinking about his lost love, crossing paths with her again, finding he has a son... Although he is a violent bad guy, you still want him to find happiness.

A truly captivating two parter - please bring it out on video!