Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I happened upon this movie as an 8-10 year old on a cold, dark November afternoon. I was outside playing all day, freezing, and when I came in around 4pm, I had a cup of hot cocoa and sat down in front of the TV with a blanket. I was surprised to be watching a cartoon that wasn't all happy and silly--and was in fact dark, and moralistic. It captured my imagination. I'm sure it misses the text, and is abbreviated in all the wrong places for the Tolkien purist. But it still captures the spirit of the story, the choice to carry a burden for the good of others, the consequences of selfish, rash decisions, etc. The quality of animation leaves room for complaint. But the one place where this movie clearly rises above the new films is the voice characterizations. John Hurt is great in this. If you don't like how the character is drawn, look away, and just listen to him. His voice is extraordinary. I've seen it again many, many times and it always brings me back to that time, as a kid, thirsty for some magical adventure. It's for this reason I say 'lucky', the film is nostalgic for me so I overlook its shortcomings. But between John Hurt, and Tolkien's fantasy, it still reached me, and still does.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: This is a classic action flick from the '80s featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most memorable roles. Set in a futuristic police state where the government controls everything, including the television networks. One of their most popular TV shows is "The Running Man", where convicted felons are hunted down and killed for the entertainment of millions. It's set up like a game show, where the audience votes for their favorite "stalkers", trained killers who hunt down and kill the show's unlucky "contestants". Audience members also win prizes for correctly predicting who will be killed by whom. And the host is played by none other than Family Feud's Richard Dawson, who's game show experience makes him well suited for this role. When Ben Richards (Arnold) is falsely accused of mass murder, he is forced to play this sadistic game.

This movie is chock full of classic Arnold one-liners, such as his famous "I'll be back" right before he enters the arena. And he taunts a stalker armed with a flamethrower with "How about a light?" I could go on and on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It's funny stuff!

Whether it was intended or not, this movie serves as a great parody of today's "Reality TV" craze. Already there are numerous programs that show people enduring pain and humiliation for the entertainment of viewers, and even court cases are televised for their "entertainment value". Running Man demonstrates what would happen if reality TV hit rock bottom, and it is a scary picture. One can only hope that the networks have the common sense not to let it go that far.

Overall, this is a fun film & I highly recommend it. 9 out of 10!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Please Note: I see from the various posts that there was an original silent version and also a sound version of this same film. I saw the sound version and it was esthetically yicky. Considering some indicate that the original version was LONGER and without crappy dubbing, my review must be read with this in mind.

Although I know that Rene Clair has a lovely reputation as a film maker and Louise Brooks has a bit of a cult following as well, this is in many ways a technically poorly made film. While Hollywood had already pretty much switched to sound mode around 1929, up through the early to almost the mid-30s, a lot of famous French films were essentially silent films--with some dialog and sound effects very poorly slapped over top the film. The lip movements in many, and in particular this film, don't even come close to matching what is being said and this would explain why an American like Ms. Brooks could do a French film. This is just sloppy and I would have preferred they had just made a silent film--and as a silent film this is would have been an average film--with excellent camera work (at times) and some decent silent-style acting.

The problem I also found with the film was the overly simplistic plot. For a silent morality play circa 1920, it would have been fine, but by 1930 standards the plot is a bit hoary (that means "old"--not "slutty"). A lady wins a beauty contest and her macho fiance can't handle it. She gives it all up, temporarily, but is lured back to the fancy life and this spells her end! A tad melodramatic, huh? And also a bit simplistic and underdeveloped.

Finally, the character of the fiance's friend(?) I found very disturbing and unreal. He looked like Harold Lloyd and spent much of the movie being abused and picked on by the friend and everyone else. As he just took it throughout the movie and no resolution came about, his character seemed superfluous and the treatment he received mean-spirited. Were audiences supposed to laugh as he was abused? This seems to me that's what is implied and I don't like it at all.

There are FAR better French films of the era (Le Million, La Femme du Boulanger, Fanny, Regain, and others) as well as better silent films. I just can't understand this film's high rating.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.