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

A: No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?

The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!

Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancee--check.

Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.

What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...

The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds.

You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.

I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.

But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.

Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).

Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.

I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.

I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.

If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.

Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.

There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.

If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
A small pleasure in life is walking down the old movies aisle at the rental store, and picking stuff just because I haven't seen it. A large pleasure is occasionally taking that movie home and finding a small treasure like this playing on my screen.

Long before Elia Kazan turned himself into a brand cranking out only notable movies (not good ones), he made this better than average drama. Watching it you begin to notice how many decent, good or nicely observed scenes have accumulated. Contrast that with his later films where the drama is writ large... preferably large, and unsubtle, and scandalous. Kazan was eventually more of a calculating promoter than a director. (um. No thanks)

His future excesses are hinted at here only in the plot. The plague is coming! But here's an atypical Richard Widmark playing a family man in 1951 and avoiding most of the excesses of that trope; here's an almost watchable Barabra bel Geddes, with her bathos turned way down (well, for her); they're a couple and they share some nicely-written scenes about big crises and smaller ones. Here's an expertly directed comic interrogation with a chatty ships-crew; here's a beautiful moment as a chase begins at an angular warehouse and a flock of birds shoots overhead punctuating the moment. These are the small-scale successes a movie can offer in which a viewer can actually recognize life; something Hollywood, in its greed, now studiously avoids. These are the moments that make me go to the movies and enjoy them. It's a personable, human-scaled film, not the grotesque, overscaled production that he and others (David Lean) will later popularize, whose legacy is still felt in crap as varied as Pirates of the Caribean and Moulin Rouge.

I just watched it twice and I'll be damned if I could tell you what Jack Palance is seeking in the final scenes, but it doesn't seem that important to me as a viewer. This reminds me of both No Way Out a Poitier noir with Widmark as the villain, and Naked City, which you should really get your hands on.