Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of the best examples of Hollywood SF films. Its influence was felt for more than a decade. However, certain elements relating to how this wide-screen entertainment was aimed at a mid-fifties audience that is now gone have dated it quite a bit, and the film's sometimes sluggish pacing doesn't help. But, the story's compelling central idea involving the ancient,extinct Krell civilization and "monsters from the Id" hasn't lost its appeal and continue to make this film a relevant "must see" movie. What I'm mostly interested in saying here is that the current DVD for this movie is terrible. The movie has never really looked that good on home video and it's elements are in dire need of restoration. I hope that will happen soon and we get a special edition of this SF classic.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Action, horror, sci-fi, exploitation director Fred Olen Ray shows he has some talent as a director. Character actor William Smith is one of the best tough/bad guys in the industry. He treats the viewer with the best acting performance of his career. As for Randy Travis he gives his best Lee Van Cleef impression. He's not bad in the film. Smith and Travis make the movie. As for the rest of the cast none of them really stand out. Ray did a great job directing this flick, Smith and Travis were good, I'd give this B western on a scale of one to ten(ten being the best) a seven.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.

As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.

It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others.

Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is one of those movies which makes you think: would Hulk " The real American " Hogan have done the same? Frankly I don't think so and he'd have been right. I'm Italian, I cannot go proud of my country for many reasons, but I wouldn't have rowed for another team (The French, for example), simply because I'm in love with Juliette Binoche. Besides the protagonist doesn't fall in love desire with a British girl at the end of the movie but with a fellow countrywoman, so why rowing against Yale. As far as acting is concerned, well, all the players act very poorly. And then , you know, I hated that "Dead poets society " atmosphere. In fact that's another movie I hate.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.

CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.

When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
In a famous essay he wrote about Charles Dickens, George Orwell points out that many readers always regretted that Dickens never continued writing like he did in PICKWICK PAPERS: that is, he did not stick to writing funny episodic novels for the rest of his career. This would not have been too difficult for Dickens. His contemporary Robert Surtees did precisely that, only concentrating on the misadventures of the fox hunting set (MR. FANCY ROMFORD'S HOUNDS is a title of one of his novels). Among hunters and horse lovers Surtees still has a following but most people find his novels unreadable. Dickens was determined to show he was more than a funny man (and don't forget, his first book, SKETCHES BY BOZ, was also a funny book). So Dickens third book is OLIVER TWIST (which got pretty grim at points). Orwell says that for any author to grow they have to change the style of their books. Dickens would definitely (and successfully) have agreed to that.

But Orwell overlooked the genre writer who transcends his fellows. Surtees, as I said, is a genre writer concentrating on hunting - but not everyone is interested in hunting. But P.G.Wodehouse saw himself as an entertainer, poking fun at the upper reaches of the British social system. His Earl of Emsworth is prouder of raising the finest pig in England than being...well Earl of Emsworth! His Psmith is always prepared to counterattack when he is supposed to be submissive to an unfair superior. His Stanley Uckridge will always have a "perfect" scheme that should net a huge profit (but always manages to come apart at the end). And best of all, his Jeeves will always put his brilliant brain to work rescuing the inept Bertie Wooster, his boss. Since Wodehouse had a limited view of his mission as a writer - he was there to do cartoon figures of fun for the entertainment of the world - his books never lost their glow. They served (and still serve) their purposes. In fact, compared Wodehouse with his far more serious contemporary Evelyn Waugh, who also wrote funny books, but of a more intellectual type. The best of Waugh remains among the high points of 20th Century British literature: BRIDESHEAD REVISITED, DECLINE AND FALL, and the rest. But in his determination to make his points, if his points failed to interest the reader the book frequently collapsed. For every VILE BODIES there was some failure late in his career like THE ORDEAL OF GILBERT PINFOLD. While Wodehouse could do lesser hack work too, his falling did not go as far as Waugh's did.

Wodehouse also was a gifted lyricist (when you hear "Bill" in the score of SHOWBOAT, it is not Kern and Hammerstein's tune, but Kern and Wodehouse's tune transposed from "Oh Lady, Lady" a dozen years earlier). He was a handy dramatist too. So it is pleasing to see that he took his novel A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS and turned it into the screenplay here.

It has the normal Wodehouse touches. That perfect butler Keggs (Reginald Gardiner in a wonderful performance) is a scoundrel in rigging a "friendly" gambling game of chance among the staff of the stately home he heads. He is also unable to refrain, occasionally, from singing Italian opera - despite Constance Collier's attempts to control his impulse. This is typical Wodehouse characterization. So is the way the love affair between Lady Alyce and Jerry keeps going well and going down due to the antics of Keggs and young Albert, both of whom want to win that game of chance pot of cash. Wodehouse always does that type of plot switch, with antagonists switching their point of view depending on their present state of interest.

Wodehouse was also lucky here to have Burns and Allan to work with. It is generally considered that of all the films they made as supporting actors together (such as SIX OF A KIND and WE'RE NOT DRESSING) George and Gracie did their best support with Fred Astaire. The Fun House sequence, which includes the song "Stiff Upper Lip", is wonderful, as is an earlier sequence where the three do a "whisk broom" dance (that Astaire learned from Burns). But Gracie's marvelous illogical logic is used by Wodehouse in scenes with Gardiner (see how she manages to confuse him into giving her more money than her change deserves to be - only Albert happens to notice Keggs/Gardiner's mistake, and looks at Gardiner as though he's either stupid or mad). Her dialog with Lady Caroline (Collier)'s son Reggie (Ray Noble, the British band leader)leading him to imagine that he will marry her, but saying goodbye to Gracie as she drives off with George to get married is wonderful too.

The film supposedly failed at the box office because of the lack of Ginger Rogers in it, and the weakness of Joan Fontaine. Fontaine is not doing a remarkable job in the role, but the flaw is really Wodehouse's - he didn't make the character very interesting. But the film can stand without that, given the other performers and their characters, Gershwin's music, and Wodehouse's marvelous sense of fun.