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

Answer: This has just been broadcast on BBC and I am absolutely delighted to have seen it. As the credits rolled, the cast alone made certain that I would give it a go. After just five minutes I was completely immersed in this beautiful film.

Yes it was formulaic and predictable, but that somehow added to it's charm. The flashbacks to the forties were wonderfully placed and captured a feeling equalled in few productions.

A real feel-good film, punctuated throughout with outstanding music. When it's released, I'll buy it!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.

The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.

And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.

Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.

The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through?

R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It's a pretty good cast, but the film has nowhere near the grace of the original Italian comedy "Big Deal on Madonna Street" Anyone looking for an entertaining caper film should visit the original. William Macy may be one of our greatest living actors, but here he's put to little use. And his role in the original was played by Marcello Mastroianni, so I sort of feel sorry for him trying to fill those shoes. Might as well try to imitate Bogart or a young De Niro. The art direction is rich and textured but brings nothing to the story, the extra bits they add to the story feel completely unnecessary and the things they take away are missed. Even starting the way they do seems bizarrely gratuitous and takes away from the surprise of the original. Sam Rockwell has his odd and genial charm and Luis Guzman has that odd charisma, but the love story part of the movie just seems clunky and flat. It's too bad nobody has figured out how to make this movie as well as it was first made, but then again it's too bad we live in a culture where we feel like we need to remake amazing things instead of simply learning to savor the originals.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Where to begin?

#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.

Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he

A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?

B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?

C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails

D) All of the above

E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at

the time they approved the script?

#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...

#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.

Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say!