Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.

Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: this movie let me down decidedly hard. it was a great concept that was ruined with a horrible script. The story just didn't flow and was disjointed at best. There were so many elements to this story that were not explained, or were forced into place with out any real thought. elements like the love story could have been expanded on a bit more, and the cannons need to be written in better. the whole main character growing up thing needed more about the training he was receiving and less standing around. everyone likes a good "little guy overcomes" story and this showed promise but with the scripting failures wasn't to be. While it did have some pyrotechnics in the final battle sequence it was lackluster due to a lack of choreography. this made for a maddeningly boring watch

it could have been so good :(
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A very engaging documentary about Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy, whose work consists mostly of ephemeral sculptures made from elements from nature. His work is made of rocks, leaves, grass, ice, etc., that gets blown away when the tide arrives at the beach or the wind blows at the field. Thus, most of Goldsworthy's works don't really last, except as photos or films of what they were. Now, one can argue that Goldsworthy's works are a reflection of mortality, or words to that effect, but isn't it easier to say that what he does is just beautiful art. And at a time when the stereotype about artists is that they are mostly bitter, pretentious, often mentally unstable people who live in decrepit urban settings, Goldsworthy seems to be the opposite: a stable, unpretentious, family oriented person who loves nature and lives in a small village in Scotland (of course, I'm sure those are the same reasons why he's shunned by some people on the art world who found his works fluffy or superficial).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Unreal "movie", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect "penis" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the "penis" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the "main event" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.

I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible "Theme song", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting "1984!" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.

The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.

The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.

A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.

The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more "stagey" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.

Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.

This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation.