Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Barbra Streisand is a tour de force in this Hollywood story. Her performances and the songs are one-of-a-kind and are special in the halls of great movies. The scene where she is introduced to the unexpecting audience by Kristopherson, against the crowds' wishes and hers, only to turn them around with her magnificent performance of "Woman In the Moon" is one of the best examples on film of how well a great performer can win over an audience. It's real. The scene where she records Evergreen ranks with the best in the business.. all live, no lip-sync, very special. Streisand is often criticized for being a Diva, but she delivers on this one. She is majestic singing "With One More Look At You. She deserved the Oscar she and Paul Williams got for Evergreen. Kristopherson had his moments too, far above most of his movie appearances. This version of the "Born" franchise ranks with the first one of 1937 (Janet Gaynor, Frederic March)although I will always enjoy Judy Garland and James Mason musical remake of 1954. I haven't seen the DVD yet and don't know about its quality.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when "Silent Night/Deadly Night" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny!

The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film has been scaring me since the first day I saw it.

My Mum had watched it when it was on the telly back in '92. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night by her tearful ramblings as my Dad helped her up the stairs.

She was saying something like "Don't let her get me" or something like that. I asked what had made her so upset and she told me that she'd been watching The Woman in Black.

So obviously i had to watch it and even though i was only eleven she let me. It scared the s*** out of me. I've been immune to horror films since watching this!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The opening flourishes left me purring with delight at their inventiveness - the altered version of the Archers' logo, the introductory disclaimer, the way the camera pans over the cosmos. It's strange to think that 'It's a Wonderful Life' came out in the same year. No great coincidence: the 1940s was awash with heaven-and-earth films; but the glowing cotton wool nebulas and cutesy angels of the competition look tattered, something best passed over in silence, when placed next to Alfred Junge's vision.

It continues to look great all the way through, as more and more striking ideas are sprung upon us. I'm not a great fan of mixing colour with black and white in general. One of the two visual schemes almost always looks ugly when placed next to the other. Not so here. Powell dissolves colour into monochrome and monochrome into colour as if it's the most natural thing in the world, a mere change of palettes. Both the colour photography and the black and white could stand on their own.

As for the story ... this may be Pressburger's best script, or at least it would have been had the conclusion been a more logical outcome of preceding events. Other than that it's tight, yet with more going on than I can possibly allude to here. Was the heavenly stuff real or imaginary? (Or both? Perhaps Carter dreamt up a fantasy that was, as it so happened, true.) Everyone says we're meant to neither ask nor answer this question, but I don't see why. I'm sure we ARE meant to ask the question. The film even gives us clues as to what the answer is - indeed, the problem is that there are too many clues and they seem at first to be pointing in different directions. The fact that other things ought to occupy our attention as well doesn't mean that this shouldn't occupy us as well. There is, as I've said before, a lot going on.

Consider the scene in which Abraham Farlan (Heaven's prosecuting lawyer) plays a radio broadcast of a cricket match, and contemptuously says, 'The voice of England, 1945.' Dr. Reeves (the defence) acknowledges the exhibit with a great deal of embarrassment, and then produces one of his own: a blues song from America, which Farlan listens to as though he's got a lemon in his mouth. Reeves looks smug.

Snobbery? Well, I don't see why it's snobbish to condemn blues music - and that's not what Powell and Pressburger are doing, anyway. As the song is being played, we get a shot of the American soldiers listening to it: several of them nod their heads to the rhythm, perfectly at home. THEY don't find it incomprehensible. There's something valuable about the song and neither Reeves nor Farlan knows what it is. Reeves probably realises as much. All English audiences (and all Australian, Indian, etc. audiences as well) know without being told that there is something of value in the cricket broadcast, too; and that while Reeves understands THAT, he is unable to explain it to Farlan - hence the blues broadcast, which shows that people can understand each other without sharing an understanding of everything else. It's a clever scene.

One last thing. I found David Niven a bit cold, without the charisma he would acquire later in his career; but even so, I don't think a film has grabbed my heart quite so quickly after the action began, as this one did.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.

There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.

There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.

Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.

But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing.