Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:

In 1970, after a five year absence, Kurosawa made what would be his first film in color. Dodes' Ka-Den is a film that centers around many intertwining stories that go on in a small Tokyo slum.

The title comes from the sound a mentally retarded boy makes as he imagines he is operating a train. We slowly get to know more of the people in the small community, the two drunks who trade wives because they are not happy with the ones they have. The old man who is the center of the town who helps out a burglar that tries to rob him. The very poor father and son that cannot ever afford a house, so they imagine one up of their own. By the end of the film, the stories all come full circle, some turn out happy, others sad.

Since this was Kurosawa's first color film you can see that he uses it to his advantage and it shows. Maybe too much. This movie goes in many different directions and it's hard to settle down and get into it. But don't get me wrong, Dodes' Ka-Den may not be Kurosawa's best, but coming from the greatest director of all time, it's much better than 99% of today's films.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Hrm-I think that line was from the old movie posters.

This is a dumb movie that seems to have been translated from some language that was totally unfamiliar to the translator. Here's a tip: Any movie that starts with a black screen and text reading "In the future..." is going to be fun. This means that the premise is so implausible that they have to explain it to you.

In this case, "In the future..." means that, instead of fighting wars, nations have guys climb into giant robots and duke it out to determine, well, that's never terribly clear, but it's probably something really important. There are good guys (obviously capitalists, i.e. "us") and bad guys (Commies!) and there are big stop-motion robots.

Sadly, the effects budget was pretty slim, so we don't get to see a lot of the big robots. There are plenty of cheap looking interior scenes, and then a big space fight near the end. The space fight is especially nice, as it serves precisely no purpose other than the blow the remainder of the effects budget.

With said money now spent, the climactic fight degenerates into (and I'm not making this up) two guys hitting each other with sticks. I can always get a laugh in a bar by re-enacting the final scene, complete with a last line guaranteed to leave any audience scratching their heads.

Like I said-it's dumb. That's why I bought the tape.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.

1/10
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.

My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.

It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.

Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Characters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.