Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have to point out, before you read this review, that in no way, is this a statement against Iranian people ... if you really want to read something into it, than hopefully you see, that I'm against politicians in general ... but if you're looking to be offended ... I can't help you!

Not in Iran as this movie is banned there (see IMDb trivia for this movie). Which is a shame, because the movie is great. Would it not be for "Grbavica", this movie would have won at the International Film Festival in Berlin.

Rightfully so (it was the runner-up, or second place if you will). Why? Because it is a movie about oppression. It's not even that this is a complete women issue. It is about the government trying to keep the people down. An analogy so clear that the government felt the need to ban the movie. But by banning it nothing is resolved and/or can they make this movie disappear!

Another reviewer had a great summary line: "Comedy about a tragedy", that sums it up pretty well!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Although a tear jerker it is definitely a "feel good" movie. All the actors were excellent and Will Smith as always, does the job and does it well. I could go on but pick any ten of the "10" ratings and they've said it as well and likely better than I could.

BUT, since I must include at least 10 lines to post a comment I will say that Rosario Dawson was largely unknown to me as a viewer. Her performance was most enjoyable and I look forward to seeing her perform in many films to come.

AND, this film demonstrates that Will Smith has nothing further to prove in terms of his ability as an actor.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.

I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As an employee of the Swedish Air Force I enjoyed the nice Gripen and Hkp 9 (MBB Bo 105) flight scenes in this movie. One of the few disappointments was the EWS 39 jammer pod, in this case an inert Rb 75 (Maverick) missile painted black with the letters "EWS 39" in white along the side. Real jammer pods definitely do not look like that, at least not the ones I've seen.

But apart from that, it's an entertaining movie with a very amusing ending (the last minute). Anyone interested in seeing various Swedish military units, including the now-legendary SSG, on film should see this one.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I really wanted to love this show. I truly, honestly did.

For the first time, gay viewers get their own version of the "The Bachelor". With the help of his obligatory "hag" Andra, James, a good looking, well-to-do thirty-something has the chance of love with 15 suitors (or "mates" as they are referred to in the show). The only problem is half of them are straight and James doesn't know this. If James picks a gay one, they get a trip to New Zealand, and If he picks a straight one, straight guy gets $25,000. How can this not be fun?! Take my hand, lets stroll:

The most glaring problem with this show is the bachelor himself. James is your typical young and successful gay guy with a nice smile and body, the one you'd probably give two glances towards at your local bar before grazing for greener pastures. Why they chose to cast James as the leading man is beyond me. God knows there's so many other hotter and vivacious homosexual men out there dying to be on TV.

Aside from his rather average physical appearance, James is about as interesting and exciting as a piece of chalk. Even as such, he has this arrogant, smugly condescending aura about him. However, if James were standing up against a blank, white wall he'd meld right into in it. I honestly can't recall a single interesting or noteworthy thing James said during the course of the show. He is THAT boring and forgettable. In fact, one of the mates flat out advised him he wasn't feeling a connection. I thought that was the best part of the show. Also, James speaks with an excruciatingly annoying lilt. Sound feminine or sound masculine, but don't ****ing segue tones in the middle of sentences...so painful to sit through. I hated him so much all throughout the show I kept thinking, "Please choose a straight guy and humiliate yourself and your unfortunate looking hag"

Then we have the suitors. A remarkably bland bunch of men who don't seem to care either way what is happening. Equally vapid, they seem to be indistinguishable from one guy to the next except, "Hey that guy has blond highlights or oh that one has curly hair" Again, astoundingly inept casting decisions seem to be the aim of this show. While it may be hackneyed to type cast roles, it would've been a lot more entertaining to watch than these amorphous drones. However, in all their banality they still manage to upstage James (which isn't all that hard to do anyway), slightly that is. You know you have a problem when some of the suitors are actually hotter and more interesting than the leading man. And the fact that the suitors seem to have more fun around EACH OTHER than with the leading man? Very sad.

Also, I just thought that Id point something mentioned on the message boards which I felt was actually true: the straight men are all hotter than the gay guys.

Don't get me wrong, Im not saying all the gay guys were ugly and boring, as a matter of fact I found some of them very cute. It's just that overall they were just BLAH compared to the men you'd see on shows like A Shot At Love with Tila Tequila or The Bachelorette.

I don't know how many times I hit fast forward during this show. I can accept a lead character as interesting as a cardboard box, I can accept the mundane, apathetic suitors but PLEASE for the love of God entertain me just a little. No such luck.

If you're expecting drama, intrigue, sexiness, or excitement you will be SEVERELY disappointed. The biggest "drama" comes from the fact that one of the suitors still may have a boyfriend in New York (How scandalous!). As titillating as that may be I guarantee you, that is the ONLY thing that remotely resembles any conflict on this show.

Sure there is the twist, but if you have any semblance of Gaydar in you, you'll easily discern who's who (it wasn't hard at all, I was only wrong once.) This show is stacking so much of its chips on the twist that it fails to deliver anywhere else.

We get to watch as James & Co plod along such exciting activities such as learning how to Western step dance, shopping for gifts, visiting a petting zoo, and gay karaoke. YAWN. Sure you have the occasional topless dancing but who cares when everyone is boring anyway. That's one of main problems with the show: NO ONE seems to be enjoying themselves--they are there just going through the motion trying mightily hard to appear to have a good time. And you really cant blame them since the events are all wildly unimaginative and lame.

Finally, the physical aspect is not there. There's no cuddling, no caressing, no kissing (!), no endearment of any sort. It's just "Ok that was a boring date, Im gonna go back to my ugly, tacky wanna-be Sydney Operahouse dwelling (quick peck on the lips) CYA." This show is so ****ing prudish it's ridiculous. I can understand them not wanting to play up the perceived indiscretionary nature of homosexual men, but come the **** on. People who watch reality TV shows are gonna want more than standoffish hugs and curt kisses. This show refuses to compromise.

Sorry if this was long winded but I felt these were issues that needed to be addressed. I do commend Bravo for first putting up a show of this nature, but the staggeringly incompetent manner in which this show was handled is mind boggling. To summarize my three points: Boring + Boring + Boring = go do something else. You'll have more fun waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, at least they have interesting magazines there.