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

A: THE BEAVER TRILOGY is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant films ever made. I was lucky enough to catch it, along with a Q&A session with director Trent Harris, at the NY Video Festival a few years back and then bought a copy off of Trent's website. This movie HAS to be seen to be believed! I sincerely recommend searching for Trent's name on the web and then buying the film from his site. He's an incredibly nice guy to boot. Don't get confused: The cameraman in the fictional sections of THE BEAVER TRILOGY is NOT Trent!

After having seen the TRILOGY a few times, I do have to admit that I could probably do without the Sean Penn version. It's like a try-out version for the Crispin Glover "Orkly Kid" section and is interesting more as a curiosity item if you're a Penn fan than it being a good video. Penn is pretty funny, though, and you can see the makings of a big star in this gritty B&W video.

This is probably also one of Crispin Glover's best roles and I would just love to see an updated documentary about the original Groovin' Gary. Once you see this film, you'll never get Gary's nervous laughter out of your head ever again.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.

I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.

It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.

It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.

The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.

The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.

Overall, a waste of time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Slow and riddled with inaccuracy. Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico. James Arness as Jim Bowie. Brian Keith as Davy Crockett. Alec Baldwin as Col. Travis. Raul Julia as General Santa Anna. This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler. Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.

NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:

Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliche. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters 'crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as 'Friends' (yes that show on TV).

Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.

How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
An allegation of aggravated sexual assault along with some other unpleasant peccadilloes, including improper use of a broom, are made against half a dozen or so of the most popular high-school jocks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, by a "mildly retarded" student (Heather Matarazzo). The investigation and building of the case are handed over to the DA's office, where Ally Sheedy and Eric Stoltz are put in charge.

Rumors about the case spread through Glen Ridge, an upper-middle-class suburb where the jocks are adored by everyone in the community. (One of their fathers is a police lieutenant.) Nobody believes Matarazzo. "Our boys would never take a slut like that down to the basement, rape her, and subject her to such sexual humiliation." The question is whether Sheedy and Stoltz will ever be able to shape a sufficiently cogent case that they can bring the jocks to trial. Matarazzo is not an ideal plaintiff. She's desperate for love and friendship, and that makes it easy for faux friends to mislead her into making false statements. A slimy reporter says, "You can trust me," but it turns out the reporter can't be trusted at all. Another student, a very popular girl in school, pulls a Linda Tripp on Matarazzo, pretending to be her bosom buddy but all the while asking her leading questions about the incident -- and taping the results! As a consequence, watching this story unfold is like being on a roller coaster. At first it looks like a good case for Sheedy and Stoltz. But then, oops, the community organizes against the law. Then it looks good again. But then the reporter interferes. Then that obstacle is no sooner overcome, than Linda Tripp pokes her big nose into the investigation and makes public the tapes that seem to indicate Matarazzo was lying. (Well, actually, she WAS lying -- but she was lying to her interrogator in order to please her.) Then that's overcome, but Matarazzo objects to taking the stand because she doesn't want to be characterized as "retarded." Eric Stoltz is fine in the part of the prosecutor. I say that for the simple reason that he and I lived in Pago Pago around the same time. (I hope he wasn't the kid I had that altercation with at the bar of the Seaside Club. If he was, I take back my compliment.) Ally Sheedy is a strange actress and hard to characterize. She did a marvelous self-restrained job in "Fine Art" but I didn't sense any particular effort being put into this role, which was rather formulaic anyway. I mean, neither she nor Stoltz nor anyone else could give a bravura performance in what's essentially a comic book story.

The producers and director had the good sense to choose Heather Matarazzo for the role of victim. The very worst thing they could have done is cast an ethereally lovely, neotenous blond. Instead, Matarazzo, without being at all ugly, looks rather plain and this ordinary quality is complemented by her grooming and make up. Nor have the writers turned her wistful and gentle. She has a temper and is sometimes irritating to listen to, which is all for the good.

Matarazzo's character is the best drawn in the film. The jocks are stereotypes. Pure evil. They think themselves above the law, barge in on some nice girl's party in East Orange, trash the place during a party far worse than "La Dolce Vita's" climactic orgy, and leave without explanation or apology. They deserve to get it in the neck -- and they do.

I referred to this as a comic book story and that's pretty much what it is. It challenges none of our prejudices. It reaffirms out belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil. And we don't have a moment's doubt about who's who. What I'm waiting for -- not really, that's just rhetorical -- is a movie almost exactly like this one and a dozen others, but in which the victim is LYING in order to get her name and photo in the papers and garner all those sympathy chips from right-thinking folk like the rest of us.

The film is based on a true story, as are so many others we've all seen, and even more fictional features. (Eg., "The Accused".) Some are good, some are strictly routine. Okay. Fair enough. Now when do we get to see a film about the Tawana Brawley case, in which the teen-aged girl disappeared on a whim for a few days, then had her friends strip her, tie her up, and smear her with dirt, so she could claim she'd been abducted and raped by the police? Now THAT would be a challenge in a way this one simply is not.