Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: _Les Acteurs_ is the absurd story of Jean-Pierre Marielle desperately waiting for a cup of hot water, the story of a conspiracy against actors, the story of aging actors whose careers are slowly less active than they used to be, but a stunning tribute to French actors and their cinema.

Supported by a solid reflection about cinema and acting (the fourth wall, the hidden cameras, to play or not to play), the story of this film in which most of those famous actors play their own role (not to be mixed up with living their life in front of the camera - the film is not voyeur) is quite vague, and follows the actors in series of episodes which make the film quite amusing. As Andre Dussolier quits the film and leaves Josiane Balasko to play his part (great actress, she's hilariously serious especially when, in Dussolier's role, she bitches about herself), as actors run in each other on the street, asking for autographs, as fights and gossip happen, we recognize pastiche of other scenes in which each (or others) have played.

Actually, for whoever does not know the actors (most of them being at least in their 50s) or does not know French Cinema, this movie has less interest, since most of the references will be missed, but it will still offer a good track of reflection on aging, on acting, on public life...
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I felt it necessary to respond to the comments posted on the front page of this film's page because some of it was slightly misinformative.

Originally I posted quotes from the original poster, but I wasn't sure if it was proper given that this is the "comments" index and not a message board (though we used to use 'em that way back before IMDb added the film message boards) so I will edit this to make it unnecessary.

Well, first of all you may not be aware of this, but Gene Kelly first became famous for playing "Pal Joey" on Broadway in the original production. When Vincente Minnelli decided to make a Gershwin "panorama" film, he wanted Kelly's character to be more sophisticated than the "goody two shoes" roles he had been playing in most his films (with the exception of "For Me and My Gal"). Alan Jay Lerner was instructed to construct a new story set in Paris based on the story of "Pal Joey". This gave Kelly a chance to play his famous role from Broadway even though Warners had outbid MGM for the rights to "Pal Joey." In my opinion, the WB film "Pal Joey" is a wreck, though Sinatra was suitable for the role, but other problems sunk the film (script changes and poor direction. ===================================================

You complain that Kelly's pictures are not well done, even citing your art education to prove the point. But you miss the fact that Kelly's bad art was clearly designed to be bad, and it is necessary for the story/characters. The pictures are so bad, the audience knows that Kelly isn't ready for an exhibition. Even he knows it, though Milo has sort of sugared him up to the point where he almost believes her. But it's important that the audience not be sitting there saying "but, he's a great artist, if he only had the chance!". You want the audience to be fully aware of his deficiencies.

Then you complain that he sabotages his interest in the show; again you are not understanding the structure of the story. He refuses because he doesn't want to feel like a gigolo, and because he knows he's not really ready for the exhibition. His enthusiasm for the exhibition is certainly not as great as "Joey's" enthusiasm to "start a nightclub". But it serves the same function in the plot. Remember, it's essential in "Pal Joey" (the play) that Joey gives up his nightclub after he realizes that he doesn't deserve it. Same with the art show. If Kelly's paintings were actually good, it would undermine this whole point. ===================================================

Then you complain that Caron and Kelly have no "chemistry". I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the chemistry between them is not as strong as it should be, but for me it was fine. Compare it to even worse "forced" romances like the one between Cary Grant and Sophia Loren in "The Pride and the Passion". ====================================================

When you say that the big dance finale has nothing to do with anything else in this film, it just shows that you haven't dug beneath the surface of the film into its symbolism. Many elements in the dance sequence relate to the story and characters, and through the dance the plot is resolved through images and symbolism. It's about finding love, enjoying love, then losing love (he looks around and his love is gone). The movements of the symphony are constructed so that part of each dance scene mirrors a separate phase of Parisian Art and also a separate phase of their relationships. If you didn't' see that, it's not the movie's fault. It's certainly not a "load of crap". ==================================================
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!