Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity "over with." Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I frequently comment on the utter dirth of truly scary movies on the market, and sadly White Noise only served to reduce my faith that the film industry remains capable of such an endeavor. I was surprised to find myself growingly increasingly fatigued as the plot wore on and my static-induced headache increased. I found White Noise to be preposterous beyond our best efforts of suspension of disbelief. Even after witnessing the harrowing ordeal sustained by Michael Keaton, I was totally unaffected by his demise. Up until the credits I diligently awaited for something--anything-- of substance to connect me to the characters' story, but such relief never came. Sure, there were the occasional heart-stopper moments, but only because loud noises tend to do that to the dozing viewer.

While the acting was lame, Michael Keaton may have played his studliest role to date. Perhaps the only redeeming quality that White Noise has to offer is the stunning archietecture in both of Keaton's abodes. Overall, White Noise leaves one with the morbidly depressing idea that those who die are trapped in a world guarded by three malicious shadows, contriving to trick the living into following the dead to their own graves.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists.

Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.

On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.

I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: In this sequel to the 1989 action-comedy classic K-9, detective Dooley [James Belushi] and his dog Jerry Lee return to fight crime, but this time they are teamed up with another detective [Christine Tucci] and her partner, a mean Doberman named Zues who does not get along with Jerry Lee very well. Dooley does not get along with his new partner much either. That all changes as the movie goes along. The movie is intense as their is a guy that really wants to kill Dooley for the way he treated him in the past. There is some dramatic scenes dealing with the death of Dooley's wife that don't really seem to be with the tone of the movie because the rest of the movie is action sequences, dog poop jokes, fart jokes, and jokes about dogs biting bad guys in a certain area. I know that that seems like very low humor, but some of it is actually very funny. I didn't see this movie for the jokes, I saw it for two reasons. The first reason is because I am a big James Belushi fan and the second is for the action sequences. James Belushi is funnier than he was in K-9 and the action sequences at are better too. It would have been nice to see more characters from K-9 to return, but it's still a fun movie. If you are a James Belushi fan, you'll love this movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Dwight Frye steals the show in this one as a foolish young man(who seems to be mentally handicapped) who gets himself blamed for vampire-like murders especially after he reveals his love for bats which he likes to stroke and give to unsuspecting friends as 'gifts'!. Besides all of that, there's an entertaining mystery tale involving the above mentioned murders. Underrated.