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

Answer: What is supposed to be a simple generic mystery plot involving a dead philanthropist is, in fact, a head-ache inducing tale about a bunch of characters (the only big actor being Ginger Rogers, in a very early role) all trying to find the murderer among a small cast of residents in a posh apartment building. These characters range from utterly stupid to downright mean. As a cheap, low budget production, most of the action revolves around Rogers and her lead man (some guy, I don't care who he is 'cause he really sucked) talking about their various possibilities of solving the crime, while being constantly cut off by an absurd detective with his head in his butt. Honestly, I've never had a worse time watching an old b-rate movie of this type, and I've seen some real head-slappers.

Oh, and the butler didn't do it, because there wasn't a butler. But pay attention to the guy who's closest to a butler. There ya go.

--PolarisDiB
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.

I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.

It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.

The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.

2.6/10 on the "B" scale.

That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...

the Fiend :.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.

I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.

That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.

If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.

Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.

Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.

For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is a great movie from the lost age of reactionary made-for-television drama. My all-time favourite actor, Robert Culp skillfully plots a trajectory through uptight liberal fairmindedness and faith in the system, kneejerk conservativism and fear of crime, and homicidal psychosis. The teens are a collection of pure sneering evil stereotypes, and the eventual message of this film makes episodes of Dragnet look evenhanded by comparison. But what really shines in this is the great pace of the movie, building the fear and paranoia by degrees, as well as the feel of the whole California setting. The cars are really great as well, as I recall. I give this film a 10, and I defy anyone to watch this film and not enjoy every minute. Remember, just because it's made-for-television doesn't mean it isn't great art.