Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.

But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.

One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Bored and unhappy young babe Zandalee (a winningly sultry and vibrant performance by luscious brunette knockout Erika Anderson) feels trapped in a stale and loveless marriage to failed poet and decent, yet dull businessman Thierry Martin (a solid and credible portrayal by Judge Reinhold). Zandalee has a torrid adulterous fling with sleazy and arrogant artist Johnny Collins (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Nicolas Cage). Can the relationship between Thierry and Zandalee be salvaged? Or is everything going to fall apart and go to seed? Director Sam Pillsbury and screenwriter Mari Kornhauser lay on the tawdry soap opera-style histrionics something thick while attempting to tell a wannabe serious and insightful story about desire run amok and its potentially dangerous consequences; the plot goes gloriously off the rails in the laughably histrionic last third. The dialogue is likewise hilariously silly and vulgar (sample line: "I wanna shake you naked and eat you alive"). Better still, this flick certainly delivers plenty of tasty female nudity (the gorgeously statuesque Anderson looks smoking hot in the buff) and sizzling semi-pornographic soft-core sex scenes (Johnny and Zandalee doing the dirty deed in a church confessional booth rates as a definite steamy highlight). The tart'n'tangy New Orleans setting adds extra spice to the already steamy proceedings. With his long, scruffy black hair, greasy mustache, foul mouth, and coarse manners, Cage's Johnny is an absolute hoot as the single most grossly unappealing "romantic" lead to ever ooze his way onto celluloid. The cast deserve props for acting with admirable sincerity: Anderson, Cage and Reinhold all do respectable work with their parts, with fine support from Joe Pantoliano as Zandalee's merry flamboyant homosexual friend Gerri, Viveca Lindfors as Theirry's wise, perceptive mother Tatta, Aaron Neville as friendly bartender Jack, and Steve Buscemi as a funny, blithely shameless thief. Walt Lloyd's sharp and gleaming cinematography gives the picture an attractive glossy look. The flavorsome, harmonic score by Pray for Rain likewise hits the spot. A delightfully campy and seamy riot.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: " Now in India's sunny 'clime, where I use to spend my time as a soldier in the service of her Majesty the queen . . . " so goes the famous poem penned by Rudyard Kipling. This is the literal foundation upon which the movie "Gunga Din" is based. If you are fortunate enough to watch this legendary Classic, you will enjoy films the way they use to make them; for the sheer pleasure. Taken from the script of the established novelist and poet, this is a story of a humble Indian native named Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) who works as 'a regimental beasty' during the British occupation of India during the 18th century. His greatest wish is to become a soldier. The water boy is part of a British Calvary contingent threatened with death by a notorious blood cult of Kali called the 'Thuggee.' Three particular soldiers stand out in this company who are noted for their bravery and comradeship. First is handsome and debonair, Cary Grant playing Sgt. Archibald Cutter. Next is Victor McLaglen as courageous Sgt. MacChesney and finally there's flamboyant Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Sgt. Thomas Ballantine. All three and their fellow soldiers are surrounded by a hoard of mountain stranglers led by their fanatical leader called the 'Guru' (Eduardo Ciannelli). Amid the Chaos of war, is the brave water-boy who hopes to earn a place in the army by playing a bugle he found. A solid story for an old black and white film which needs little fanfare for anyone looking to enjoy a classic. ****
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.