Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.

Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.

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

A: I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.

The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.

The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.

Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!)

However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.

Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.

I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.

The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.

The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.

That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.

These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.

The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.

The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.

I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Oh my, where to start... this movie was just awful. The writing was bad, acting was bad, special effects were bad. I think the only good thing about this movie is that it made me laugh! I was in the mood for a scary movie but certainly didn't get that! I thought it would be decent enough since i'm not picky. i've watched several bad horror movies. In fact, it is my goal to see all horror movies, not matter how awful they may be. At one point in the movie i made a comment about the "corn syrup blood" and in the special features they actually admit that it was Karo syrup (brand name corn syrup...) The movie had all the necessary things for a horror movie (blood, nudity, crazy killer, stupid moves) but it was just completely lacking anything to really make it good. The writer should either take some classes or just give up!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Every now and then a movie advertises itself as scary or frightening, though they usually aren't. Most modern horror movies fit into this category.

Then there are those movies that don't simply cause the tension and adrenaline to pump through your veins harder than usual. They actually frighten you to a level that you've never experienced.

"Halloween" is such a film. It takes so many risks that would make most movie producers cringe. But nearly all of them work. "Halloween" is awe-inspiring in its simplicity, and terrifying as a whole.

The story is simple. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is babysitting some kids on Halloween night, while a madman is on the loose after escaping from a mental institution after brutally murdering his older sister 15 years ago. Of course, the madman, later known as Michael Myers, begins killing the local teenage population, and eventually he comes after Laurie.

Sounds familiar, right? Just another brainless slasher filled with dumb teenagers and gobs of gore. Not a chance.

I think James Berardinelli puts it perfectly in his review of "Halloween:" "Because of its title, Halloween has frequently been grouped together with all the other splatter films that populated theaters throughout the late-1970s and early-1980s. However, while Halloween is rightfully considered the father of the modern slasher genre, it is not a member..."

He has a point, and for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it's downright terrifying, whereas most entries into the teen slasher genre are dumb gore-fests (one could argue that many recent ones are tongue-in-cheek, but most of those fail as well). Second, there is almost no violence (very little of which is bloody). John Carpenter knows that violence does not equal scary, and he relies very little on it (actually, the body count is pretty low). In fact, one can argue that this isn't really a horror movie, at least not by todays standards of having the most deaths that can be crammed into a single movie, each gorier and more sadistic than the last. He relies on ideas for scares, and also skill. Third, while some of the characters may do stupid things (that sometimes seal their fate), they don't do them because they're dumb. The characters are real people, so instead of thinking that the characters die because they're idiots, we're frightened because they're making a mistake.

One of the main reasons why "Halloween" is so scary is because it is so easy to believe that it's real. Nothing is hard to swallow in this film. There's no supernatural, there's no ridiculously creative plot elements, or "inventive" murders, or whatnot. Instead, all the set pieces and camera work (save the opening sequence) are simple. Carpenter just sets the camera in place and says action. What we get is the feeling that we're actually seeing a murder take place right in front of us.

Horror movies are probably the most difficult films to make because in order for something to be scary, everything has to be perfect, and ideas never work twice. It's a hit or miss game, which is why if I were to tell you all the good ideas that Carpenter has (which I'm not), they'd seem primitive (particularly since they have been repeated with lesser effect over and over again through the years).

Acting here is not a plus point because it doesn't need to be. This is a movie about scary ideas, not a movie about dramatic, conflicted characters. The actors act like real people, not characters from a story. Nothing more. The exception to this is whoever plays The Shape, or later known as Michael Myers. It can be scary to have a person say nothing and simply kill, but it's hard to pull off (and even harder to keep people from asking why). But the guy pulls it off, and the result is terrifying.

This is Carpenter's movie through and through. He directed it, co-wrote it, co-produced it, and wrote the chilling score of it. This is a man of brilliance, and his later movie "The Thing" supports this statement, though The Thing is not as scary as "Halloween." Unfortunately his success has dramatically diminished, as it happens when the lure of big money for less freedom is taken advantage of once big time producers "recognize your potential." As good as this film is, it's not without flaws. The famous opening scene is disturbing, but not very scary. And not many of the scares work for the first part of the movie. It's not that it's bad, it's just that there's no good reason to fear "The Shape." Luckily, Carpenter mostly uses this time to set up a relationship between the characters and the audience. While there's no intimacy in this relationship, it fits the purpose. We grow to know the characters, but not so much that it's disheartening when they die. But once the film gets to Halloween night, that's when Carpenter kicks things into high gear and it NEVER stops until you get to the end.

While "Halloween" may be flawed, it is only slightly so. It is an immensely terrifying film, and a must see for anyone who loves scary movies. Be warned though, this movie will scare the living hell out of you!