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

A: The fight scenes play like slow-motion Jackie Chan and the attempts at wit are pathetic (worst pun by far: "Guess what? This time I heard you coming"). The stars are a mismatched pair: Brandon Lee, despite the terrible lines he has to say, actually shows traces of charisma and screen charm - things that Dolph Lundgren is completely free of (at least in this movie). Note to the director: in the future, please stay away from any love scenes, especially when your main actress won't do any nudity and you have to rely extensively on a body double. (*1/2)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.

This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.

Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.

The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.

This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.

The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: In a word...amazing.

I initially was not too keen to watch Pinjar since I thought this would be another movie lamenting over the partition and would show biases towards India and Pakistan. I was so totally wrong. Pinjar is a heart-wrenching, emotional and intelligent movie without any visible flaws. I was haunted by it after watching it. It lingered on my mind for so long; the themes, the pain, the loss, the emotion- all was so real.

This is truly a masterpiece that one rarely gets to see in Bollywood nowadays. It has no biases or prejudices and has given the partition a human story. Here, no one country is depicted as good or bad. There are evil Indians, evil Pakistanis and good Indians and Pakistanis. The cinematography is excellent and the music is melodious, meaningful (thanks to Gulzar sahib) and haunting. Everything about the movie was amazing...and the acting just took my breath away. All were perfectly cast.

If you are interested in watching an intellectual and genuinely wonderful movie...look no further. This movie gives it all. I recommend it with all my heart. AMAZING cannot describe how excellent it is.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.

But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.

The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.

The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.

The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.

An absolute must-see.