An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carre minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.

In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.

Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all.

Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.

Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him.

And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues!

Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.

His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rudiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.

The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.

Indeed well worth the money!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As others have pointed out this movie is a load of pretentious drivel for the mindless or masochists.

We all know after seeing trainspotting and acid house that Scotland is one of the most depressing places in the first world. But unlike trainspotting and acid house without a good dose of humour or gritty realism movies like this do not work. And even more importantly without a decent script a movie will not work and there is nothing new, inspiring or thought provoking about the script for this movie.

The fact that this movie won a couple of Bafta's shows how bad the British film industry is at the moment. I thought the Aussie movie industry was pretty bad at the moment but unfortunately the British industry is even worse.

This movie is so bad I wouldn't even bother renting it from the weeklies section.

Do yourself a favour and give this movie a wide berth.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I've been trying to track down this film just by googling bad phrases about "teenagers seduce and kill man in his house" and such. I think I first saw parts of this film when I was about 10 years old when it was running on cable. It made quite an impression! It's the kind of film that kids know they shouldn't be watching, and switch the channel when their parents come in. When I saw who the cast was, I couldn't believe that some of these good actors were in such a horrible movie. Then again, if you like to see men who cheat on their wives get murdered, then this is an interesting film. Also, if I recall, there's some pretty interesting pseudo-lesbian moments. Probably the dumbest ending of all time, but still...memorable.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The head of a common New York family, Jane Gail (as Mary Barton), works with her younger sister Ethel Grandin (as Loma Barton) at "Smyrner's Candy Store". After Ms. Grandin is abducted by dealers in the buying and selling of women as prostituted slaves, Ms. Gail and her policeman boyfriend Matt Moore (as Larry Burke) must rescue the virtue-threatened young woman.

"Traffic in Souls" has a reputation that is difficult to support - it isn't remarkably well done, and it doesn't show anything very unique in having a young woman's "virtue" threatened by sex traders. Perhaps, it can be supported as a film which dealt with the topic in a greater than customary length (claimed to have been ten reels, originally). The New York City location scenes are the main attraction, after all these years. The panning of the prisoners behind bars is memorable, because nothing else seems able to make the cameras move.

**** Traffic in Souls (11/24/13) George Loane Tucker ~ Jane Gail, Matt Moore, Ethel Grandin
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Dana Andrews is one of those actors that I've probably seen in a dozen films, but who has never really registered for me. Often stolid, taciturn, playing the same kinds of roles and looking somewhat like the similarly underrated Glenn Ford, he's an actor that takes some effort to really appreciate; but once you hit the right film....

And this is it. Preminger's moody look at New York's underbelly is as dirty and seedy as just about any 50s noir, and Andrews is in his element as too-tough cop Mark Dixon who just doesn't know how to play the game to get ahead: he hates criminals too much to always play by the rules. Early on in the film, he accidentally kills the witness to a murder involving an illegal crap game set up by a mobster who Dixon hates for personal reasons, and he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up his involvement and bring the mobster to his kind of "justice". Along the way he gets involved with the estranged wife of the man he killed (Gene Tierney) and also has to try to get her father off the hook for the murder.

Stunningly photographed by Joseph LaShelle, with hard and sparkling dialogue by Ben Hecht and a truly powerful ending with elements of tragedy and found grace in just a minute or two of time, this is another noir for the ages and might be my favorite Preminger film thus far -- it's every bit as good as the more-heralded Laura.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.