Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish.

Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable.

Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person.

Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: i'm gonna give it to ya straight...this movie is amazing. foreign gay films are so fast surpassing American gay films in production quality acting and story. while so many American indie gay films are grainy, bad sound, amateur acting, trite story lines, and a surprising lack of any nudity or erotica, top-quality foreign gay films have been popping up like this one from France. the cinematography is beautiful, thought out, meaningful. the story is adult and complex (but not difficult for anyone to follow), the acting is intense and professional. both leads are fantastic, as well as the entire cast. the boys are more than just good-looking and there's plenty of full frontal nudity. you follow the entire year of these boys, from their meeting to the end. all the little nuances of a relationship's, the details of falling in, and out, of love are there beautifully performed. it left me wanting more. check it out!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Simply, one of the funiest movies i've ever seen. It's a parody of crime-life, parody of everything that represents the Chicago 1930.- There is no realy need to underestimate this movie because rating is under 5. Its a opinion of a mass, and mass is hypnotized. Who decide to watch it - it will regret, Who decide not to watch it - will regret more.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.

Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.

I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I'm talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it

It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple

Child sits with blank expression

Bad guys chop up the monks

Child sits with blank expression

Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson's wonderland ranch he'd still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD

The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that's the main problem ( And boy it's a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it's like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It's part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it's all crap
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.