Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.

I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.

I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.

This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.

I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded.

Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.

Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.

Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The Flock is not really a movie. It's a wannabe movie, with wannabe actors. Not including Richard Gere, he gave an excellent performance, but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character, and the rest of the cast is just acting... the result is pathetic, just like this movie. You see, the idea of acting is to hide the fact that you're acting. What the hell was Claire Dains doing in this one?! She's the most inappropriate actress for this character. In 99.9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place, out of everything!! The only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions, like " do you really think so?? " , and making silly faces. I was embarrassed by her acting, seriously, and I used to like her... She's the romantic movie type, I don't know who picked her among all the actresses out there.... LOL, and seeing Avril Lavigne?! this really made me laugh.. Anyway.. If you want to get the feeling of throwing up, this movie will do the job for you!!! I wish I could vote -5..
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a "must see." I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to "No one") character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.

This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.

In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist?

I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.

This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
In the year 2006, "In Cold Blood"-a riveting thriller from 1967-has two new interesting contexts that it did not previous have. First, and most chillingly, is the fact that it's star, Robert Blake, was recently on trial for murdering his wife. Second, the recent Oscar winning biopic, "Capote" showed the muddled back story of this haunting true crime tale's author, Truman Capote. These two new twists make the film timely for a modern audience.

As a stand alone film from it's era, "In Cold Blood" is top notch in every way. Most notable is the stunning black and white cinematography from Conrad Hall (later of "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition" fame). Many of the stills from this film of the Kansas farm house at night or the tree-lined back country roads could be sold as fine art photography. Combined with the cracker-jack direction from Brooks and superb editing in the early scenes (where we see the mundane daily life of the innocent family about to be senselessly slaughtered beautifully intertwined with the plotting of the two hapless killers), a rich brooding atmosphere is created that sets the stage for riveting suspense (even when everyone knows how this is all going to end due to the fact its all based on real life events). It's also great to see in this day and age how brilliantly staged a harrowing murder scene can be depicted where the graphic nature of the act is transmitted to the viewer subliminally with nary a drop of blood shown on screen.

The film is also anchored nicely by Robert Blake's eerie performance as the more sympathetic yet senselessly brutal side of the killing duo. The flashback scenes to his horrible childhood are extremely well done. Then there is the scene towards the end of the film where he is speaking to the reverend before being sent to the gallows and he makes his last "confession" so to speak. It's one of those classic movie moments that is a perfect marriage of gritty acting, superb writing, flawless direction, and haunting photography. I dare you to erase from your mind the stark image of the rain's reflection from the window flowing down Robert Blake's pallid face in lieu of actual tears.

The only thing hampering "In Cold Blood" is the slow moving middle act where the killers are on the lam and the forced nature of the social commentary at the end. The tacked-on political message about the death penalty is secondary to its compelling depiction of the mad killers and their prey.