Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Essentially a story of man versus nature, this film has beautiful cinematography, the lush jungles of Ceylon and the presence of Elizabeth Taylor but the film really never gets going. Newlwed Taylor is ignored and neglected by her husband and later is drawn to the plantation's foreman, played by Dana Andrews. The plantation is under the spell of owner Peter Finch's late father whose ghost casts a pall over Elephant Walk that becomes a major point of contention between Taylor and Finch. The elephants are determined to reclaim their traditional path to water that was blocked when the mansion was built across their right-of-way. The beasts go on a rampage and provides the best moments of action in the picture. Taylor and Andrews have some good moments as she struggles to remain a faithful wife in spite of he marital difficulties with Finch.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Had fun watching this film.. despite the feeling I got a lot of the time, that this film was almost copying Monsters Inc. There're quite a few things that are extremely similar between the two, the relationship between an animal/monster and a small child, other animals trying to break that relationship, etc. It felt like that pretty much throughout the film, to me.

One of the redeeming features though, is Scrat :) Very very funny character, even if he serves no purpose :)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It is always sad when "fringe" movies such as this are overlooked by the majority of filmgoers. "Panic" is a wonderfully compelling and poignant study of a character who feels trapped in the pointlessness of his own life.

William H. Macy, as Alex, is as convincing as always. This fine actor seems to have a special talent for pulling at your heartstrings, no matter how flawed his characters may be; we may not always condone the lifestyles of the protagonists he plays, but the emotions of fear and confusion that he evokes in us are often all too painfully familiar. The title, "Panic," initially seems paradoxical, given the lack of overt emotion. At one point Alex tells his doctor that he rarely gets angry. Yet, as this story unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that rage and desperation, not indifference, are the driving forces behind this man's existence.

More than once I was reminded of his performance in "Fargo," another strongly character-driven movie. In both "Fargo" and "Panic" we witness a middle aged man who somehow seems to have stepped out of synch with the rest of life. He has lost his way, and the only way back deceptively appears to be though the darkness. He knows he is making bad choices, but desperation overpowers self-control and common sense.

Alex connects with Sarah, a 23 year old woman (mesmorizingly played by Neve Campbell), whom he meets in a doctor's office. Thematically, this union is less coincidence, more the work of fate. Alex finds a certain comfort being with Sarah, sensing perhaps that she is a fellow drifter, like him, someone who has lost her way and is floating aimlessly through the rest of her life, waiting powerlessly for its inevitable conclusion.

Opting for movies such as this is a shrewd and convincing way for Neve Campbell to answer those critics who question her acting abilities. Too often it is the characters she has played who are the weakness, offering Campbell no depth in which to flex her acting muscles. This performance, however, may be an eye-opener for many.

In a perfect movie world, not only would there be many more films like "Panic," but also they would reach and be appreciated by a much wider audience. If you watch movies for the richness and depth of characterization, rather than merely the latest state-of-the-art special effects, then, for you, "Panic" is unmissable. A+.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store

This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I've read one comment which labeled this film "trash" and "a waste

of time." I think this person got their political undies tugged a bit

too much.

I just rented the new Criterion DVD's of both Yellow and Blue.

These films--although hardly great--have at least become of

historical interest as to the so-called "radical student

political-social movement"of the late '60s.

I hadn't seen either picture and from their notorious reputation, I

was expecting some real porn (there isn't any.) There is frontal

nudity (including the still verboten frontal male nudity (automatic

NC-17--the Orwellian-X) in the U.S. But I wasn't expecting the films

in-your-face democratic socialist message.

Though it tends to the simplistic , I thought it occassionally made

its points well. Both films occassionally had me laughing out loud

and the director's commentary made it clear there was plenty of

parody in the film. Especially the supposedly "pornographic" sex

scenes. The first such scene is very realistic. The lead couple is

clumsy, inept, funny and endearing in their first copulation scene.

The second--which caused the most complaints--has faked

cunnilingus and fellatio. And the last is the end of an angry fight,

that is believable.

The extras include an informative introduction to the film, an

interview with the original American distributor and his attorney,

excerpts from trial testimony in the U.S. and a "diary" commentary

by the director on some scenes.

This is the film that "blue noses" wouldn't let alone and led to the

pivotal "prurient interest with no social redeeming value" standard

that, thankfully, still stands.

Those with an interest in the quirks of history will find this a must

see.