Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.

The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.

One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.

'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.

The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.

I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iam surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish.

A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?

The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.

Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?

For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.

Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.

Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.

In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.