Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. A horrible joke of a film, I cringed throughout. Terrible, trite, distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths.

The famous Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. However, he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused, and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved).

One scene shows Hitler beating his dog. There is not one source for this. Hitler loved animals above people. He brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in Europe, banned vivisection and animal experimentation. He was also a vegetarian.

The film turns his gaining of the Iron Cross into a farce, involving bribery. Utter lies. He was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time.

There are no historical documents showing that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. Not one.

Apart from these, Hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick.

If he was even half as ignorant, demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. Never mind become the leader of Germany.

Honestly, this film was utterly terrible.

Go watch Downfall and give this a very wide berth.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In my opinion, this is a pretty good celebrity skit show. I enjoyed seeing Greg Kinnear as the host. There are many reasons why I said that. Even though Hal Sparks was an okay host, I sometimes wish that Greg Kinnear hadn't left. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed seeing the various hosts and other people spoofing celebrities. If you ask me, that was pretty darn funny. Before I wrap this up, I must say that I kind of miss this show. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this show to all you die-hard sketch show fans. You will really enjoy it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: 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.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is one of those little Christmas movies for everyone. Our Scrooge is Ben Affleck, who decides money is not enough, so he rents the family who lives where he thought HIS family did. OK? This is a great little high school soap, PG-13, but the small sex references are comedy, so if your kid can't handle them, they can't live in the real world, either.

Now, Affleck is a hunk, and as usual walks through this fun, OMG, remember when we did..., ensemble piece as if he were at the end stages of some neuroinfectious disease. But that's OK, because even this old Oracle keeps hoping that if Ben's that well proportioned all over, well, there's hope for us ladies yet. Luckily, the rest of the ensemble--Catharine O'Hara, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Udo Kier and Josh Zuckerman--fill in and keep this shadow-side-Ozzie-and-Harriet Christmas alternately hilarious, comfortable and warm.

This movie is the kind you can jump up and get popcorn, and when you get back, everyone wants to back it up to show you what you missed.

This is a happy film, after all, and it leaves you feeling good about life, love, family, Christmas and Chanel. There really IS something for everyone.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON'T LOOK NOW didn't he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight's screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever .

You see it's impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON'T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn't occur but about one third of the way through the running time there's a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it's not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie

People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it's impossible not to notice them . If I didn't no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it's got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn't help the movie at all . One can't help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen

Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie