Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The only reason I remember this movie is because it was (and still is) the biggest waste of time and money ever spent. I was 17 and my friend was 18. We were the age when action movies were our thing to enjoy most (ok 2nd most). We walked out feeling so insulted, we wanted our money back, but the time could never be regained.

The editing is what killed this movie. As the truck gets attacked by more and more vehicles with rocket launchers attached the movie completely insults the intelligence of the audience by having these rogue bad guys in 4x4 VW Bugs shooting rockets at the truck. Please, rockets at a truck known to be carrying plutonium? What's worse is the these VW's manage to get 15-18 shots off of a 4 rocket launcher. You would see on VW with 4 rockets fire 2 of them, cut around the truck with the last one attached, come back a second later with two rockets attached, fire another, then go in front of the truck and now it's back to a full set of 4 rockets.

We toughed it out hoping for a big finish that never happened. It looks like they just ran out of money and stopped.

Just ridiculous.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: In my mind the best of the Ealing comedies and one of my favourite films of all time. The theme of workers v. management (with lots of talk of unions and rights) perhaps dates the film a bit now as it's no longer a subject discussed all that much but that doesn't stop "White Suit" from being a show stopping classic.

The plot, about a man trying to create a revolutionary new fabric which ends up putting the textiles industry into turmoil, doesn't sound exciting when written down but the film retains that essential spark of fantasy mixed with reality that marks it out as a true Ealing comedy. The fabric repels dirt and can never wear out! The titular white suit that Alec Guinness wears throughout the second half becomes the centrepiece for several iconic images and sequences, such as Guinness being able to use his indestructible thread to scale a sheer wall! The script itself is full of dry wit - "Is he all right?" "Yes." "Pity." - and characterisation is first rate. I'm always astonished by the wonderful direction in these films as well. Comedies of later eras would adopt a "point the camera at the actors and let it roll" mentality but the Ealing films always attempted interesting lighting and angles and innovations. This film is no exception.

Of course, it's the cast that lifts the material to dizzying heights. Alec Guinness gives a fantastically understated performance, with eyes that convey wonder, joy and crushing defeat whenever the story demands it. Stratton is a man oblivious to everything except his work. Such an insular character could quickly have become boring or irritating but Guinness effortlessly makes him likable, so much so that the closing stages of the film generate a real sense of urgency as Stratton tries to come out on top in a world that wants to bury everything he's ever worked for. Joan Greenwood plays another of her strong female roles and is an absolute delight to watch as usual, as are befuddled Cecil Parker and slimy Michael Gough; everybody gets laughs without even trying to. It's comical British understatement at its finest.

"The Man in the White Suit" is 81 minutes of sheer brilliance, with a great plot, great cast, sparkling wit and healthy dollops of cynicism. Absolutely top notch.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:

THIS FILM IS AWFUL.

It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.

Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.

The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.

All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.

I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I could barely keep myself from either nodding off or just turning off this turd, but I decided to stick it out if only for the reasoning that maybe *something* would happen. This is the work of a writer/producer/director/special fx, Kenneth Herts, who wants to make a statement on ecological damage while making a monster movie. That's what he wanted, anyway. What it turns out to be is a lot of acting, either slightly hammy or just mundane and without much merit, and scenes that seem to repeat themselves as the monster ATTACKS in the river waters (oh, and what luck, a woman just happens to be naked in it... even though there have already been DISAPPEARANCES!)

This is just nonsensical stuff, but I suppose it's not too harmful; it's not very obnoxious at the least and once or twice we get a semi-interesting peek at Brazilian "culture" (which is the father walking through town with his flock or other pieces of a semblance of 'hey, this is NOT America!'). But whatever hope the director had in casting Mitchum or Carradine is squandered on at best pedestrian and at worst excruciatingly banal and dumb dialog. It doesn't help that when we finally get something of a good look at the monster and the "action" happens, it too is stupidly staged and with only sleazy appeal. Usually I would feel sorry for a filmmaker who had a lot of problems getting a particular picture finished- in this case it took the better part of the mid 70s- but with Monstroid or Monster or whatever it's called... nah.

If you happen to get the Elvira DVD double-feature of this (bad print with bad transfer quality) with Blue Sunshine, make sure to skip this one. Unless, of course, you're an Elvira die-hard and can't help yourself to hear her luscious commentary; personally, I'd rather get Joel or Mike Nelson with the robots from Mystery Science Theater on this roast turkey.