Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch!

The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue!

The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess!

I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!

By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.

Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the "scary" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called "humor". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.

The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.

What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless?