An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: As a biographical film, "The Lady With Red Hair" (the story of how director /producer/playwright David Belasco transformed notorious society divorcee Mrs. Leslie Carter into an international stage star) is certainly not in a league with that other Warner's biopic of similar vintage, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (what is?), but "Lady" is an enjoyable film in its own right--AND shares quite a few traits in common with the Cagney classic.

Like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" brims over with old -time show-business flavor. (Among other things, both films feature delicious theatrical boarding-house sequences as well as the inevitable scenes set backstage and in theatrical managers' offices.) Also, in "Lady" as in the Cohan biopic, the supporting cast is made up of familiar and beloved character actors of the period, all doing the sort of top-notch work we remember them for.

Need I add that, again like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" doesn't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story? But, also like "Dandy," "Lady" does manage--gloriously!--to convey the esssence of its show-business-giant hero's larger-than-life personality. Everyone knows that Cagney limned Cohan for all time in his brilliant and affectionate portrayal in "Yankee Doodle Dandy"--but few moviegoers realize that Claude Rains did a similar service for David Belasco in "The Lady With Red Hair"- -and did it with a panache that almost equals Cagney's.

Rains-as-Belasco perfectly captures that legendary showman's galvanic personality in all its outsized glory. Rains gives a tremendously enjoyable , superbly observed, and remarkably true-to-life performance as the man all Broadway once called "The Wizard." To watch Claude Rains in action (looking in every shot as if he's having a helluva good time!) in "The Lady With Red Hair" is to see David Belasco leap to life on film as if he can't wait to shake things up on the Main Stem once again.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Was it foreshadowing when Tori complained that her first boyfriend was treating her like a robot, and then her new boyfriend (the murderer) turned out to be a designer of artificial intelligence? I think so. Scenes to make you squeal with delight: montages galore, a strip-tease in a kimono (what do you call it when you seductively put clothes on, instead of take them off?), and a climactic battle on skis! Definitely tune in for the beginning and end, but you can grab a sandwich during the second act when all the plot is happening. Is it better than CO-ED CALL GIRL? Nah. Does Tori ever make it to paradise, or out of the snow, even? Nope.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.

Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.

Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.

Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.

In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.

If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.

And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.

The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Up until the last few minutes of the movie, I would have given the movie a score of 7 or 8 stars. However, the ending is so terrible and "Hollywoodized" that it completely undermines the first 80% of the movie.

The plot revolves around a submarine and the possibility that they received an order to fire their nuclear missiles. The Captain, Gene Hackman, is all for launching, while his first officer, Denzel Washington, is in favor of confirming the launch orders first. The problem is, to launch BOTH the captain and 1st officer must simultaneously use their launch keys. Hackman is determined to launch and Washington stands firm until eventually this results in armed insurrection aboard the sub. Eventually, the mistake is discovered and the missiles are not launched. Cool. However, here comes the part that just doesn't ring true. After they are back on land and go before a review board, Washington and Hackman (who'd just spent half the movie trying to kill each other) shake hands and are all buddy buddy! Huh?! Too trite an ending to make the movie worth while for me.