Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.

This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.

Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, "deep real love" You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the "super-deep" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.

Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It is not un-common to see U.S. re-makes of foreign movies that fall flat on their face, but here is the flip side!!! This is an awful re-make of the U.S. movie "Wide Awake" by the British!

"Wide Awake" is strange but entertaining and funny! "Liam" on the other hand is just strange. I must give credit to "Liam" for one thing, and that is making it clear that I made the right choice in changing my religion!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This early version of the tale 'The Student of Prague' was made in Germany in 1913, starring Paul Wegener (who was also in 'The Golem' a few years later). In this film he plays a dual role (technically impressive for a 95 year old film to see them in the same shot) after meeting a mysterious old man who makes a pact with him for gold - the gold he needs to woo a countess he's previously saved from drowning.

Moving at a fast pace (the film runs just over an hour) and fairly well written and characterised, 'The Student of Prague' has echoes of the Faust legend as well as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, starting as it does with a pact with a mysterious figure of potential evil, and developing into good and evil sides of the same person.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I'll come clean. The only reason I even found out about this DVD was because Dominic Monaghan is a favorite actor of mine. When I heard the title of the film, I thought it was going to be...different, perhaps in not such a good way.

But I was wrong. After reading what few reviews were out there about this short, I was actually excited about seeing it. I sent off for my copy as soon as able and received it a few weeks later. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.

The film follows Jack, a insomniac who is often plagued by conditions which causes him to doubt what is reality, and what is all in his head. I won't give away what happens, but I will tell you that the film can sometimes be frightening in it's realism.

The directing is fantastic, focusing on what is essential to the story without allowing it to lose any entertainment or thought-provoking moments.

All in all, I give this great film 9 out of 10, for going far beyond what I thought any short could achieve.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.

Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.

Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10