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

A: As the jacket proclaims, this film is "Gorgeously shot and masterfully edited," and, yes, it is mesmerizingly beautiful. The timelessness that we perceive in stoic rock and in the unceasing ebb and flow of water frames the ephemeral works from Goldsworthy's hands so that in their very ephemeralness they point to eternity.

And so the beauty of his compositions haunt us with just a touch of melancholy woven in--or in the words of Matthew Arnold from "Dover Beach":

Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin, and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.

At one point near the end of the film Goldsworthy says that "Words do their job, but what I'm doing here says a lot more." As a wordsmith myself I take no offense and not for a moment do I think him immodest because the combination of form and time and change and texture and color and composition that Goldsworthy painstakingly and intuitively creates, is indeed something more than mere words can say.

At another point he remarks on "What is here to stay...and what isn't." That is his theme.

I think that artists sometime in the twentieth century became acutely aware of how ephemeral even the greatest works of art are compared to the vast expanse of cosmic time; and so they began to reflect this understanding by composing works that were deliberately ephemeral. The idea was, that by emphasizing how short-lived are even the mightiest works of humans, a sense of the timelessness of art would be expressed.

Perhaps part of the effectiveness of Goldsworthy's work is in this sort of expression. He painstakingly composes some form of straw or leaves where the tide will reach it, or places it in the river where it will be swept away; and in this process is merged both the composition and its ephemerality.

Both the transitory and the timeless are necessary for us to understand our world and our place within it. And it is important that these works be done within the context of nature so that what is composed is set within what is natural. Thus the walls of stone and the eggs of stone that Goldsworthy constructs are silent and solid yet we know that they are not monuments to eternity, but instead will stay for some undefined length of time and then dissipate and return to a state much like that which existed before we came along.

This is art as art should be, akin to the spiritual.

In a sense Goldsworthy's work is an inarticulated understanding. It is an experience purely of time and form. In a sense his work "answers" Shelley's famous poem "Ozymandias" by saying, even as the tide washes the work away, and even as the river dissipates the expression, even so the art lives on because of our experience of it. Similarly one thinks of Tibetan sand paintings so carefully composed and measured out, and then just as they are so beautifully and preciously finished, they are given to the wind, so that we might know that all is flux.

Yet, in the modern world these works of art endure in photos and videos. Goldsworthy is an accomplished photographer (of necessity I would say) and all his works, even the unsuccessful ones, he tells us, are photographed so that he can look back at them in a more reflective mood and see what he has accomplished and what he has not.

This cinematic production directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer with the beautiful and appropriately haunting music by Fred Frith is not to be missed. It is one of the most beautiful documentaries that I have ever seen and one of the most spiritual.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Now, it would be some sort of cliche if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.

The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)

MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.

Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.

The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.

The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.

This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)

I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.

But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.

Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.

Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.

There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.

After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.