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

Answer: Kurosawa really blew it on this one. Every genius is allowed a failure. The concept is fine but the execution is badly blurred.

There is an air of fantasy about this film making it something of an art film. The poverty stricken of Tokyo deserve a fairer and more realistic portrayal. Many of them have interesting stories to tell. A very disappointing film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Coyote Ugly might have been much more effective if the film-makers had made it an R-rated guilty pleasure/exploitation film (with plenty of nudity.) But since the PG-13 rating is what all the studios are wanting these days, we end up with a movie like this: a PG-13 "tease" flick that isn't allowed to go nowhere near as far as the movie should have gone.

The script is go generic that it is easy to guess what plot point is going to occur 15 minutes before it actually happens. The acting is adequate, but the characters are so paper-thin that nothing could be done with them. There were also a lot of points where it seemed like I was watching a music-video rather than a movie.

The film's only assets are the amazingly beautiful female leads. We get to see them in some extremely tight and pretty revealing outfits.....but only so much could be shown due to the PG-13 constraints. There's plenty of cleavage and toned, heaving bodies doing some well-choreographed dance numbers, but there's no nudity or sex to speak of. Tyra Banks (she keeps getting even more insanely beautiful with age) is also in the movie for a very small amount of time. Sexy newcomer Piper Perabo is also very easy on the eyes (and she has a killer smile) and shows some genuine acting potential.

The only people I could see this movie appealing to is pre-pubescent boys who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies yet. That audience might get a lot out of it from a titillation aspect, but adult audiences will feel annoyed and cheated.

Rating: the movie-1 the women-10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.

I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".

Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.

It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".

It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.

A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.

Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Man, I really love the new DVD that Universal put out. I've never seen THE SENTINEL look this good since I had to put up with crappy, grainy VHS tapes for years. Unfortunately there are no extras beyond a trailer that looks pretty worse for wear. And AVOID the Goodtimes DVD at all costs. It sucks.

Anyway, troubled fashion model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into haunted NYC brownstone, only it's more than just haunted. It's also a portal to hell and the Vatican keeps an old blind priest (John Carradine) to keep watch over it and make sure the devils and arch-angels don't escape.

This has an all star cast full of old-timey actors like Ava Gardner, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer etc... as well as cameos of upcoming 80s stars including Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum (who's voice was mysteriously overdubbed) and Tom Berenger. And you won't even recognize Jerry Orbach from LAW & ORDER. I had to do a double-take when I didn't quite place where I'd seen him before.

Nice gore scenes of Alison slicing the eye and nose off her dead father's rotting corpse that's been possessed by the devil. And there's a neat ending where disfigured, deformed people try to haunt Alison into committing suicide so she won't be the next one to guard the portal. It seems Alison's troubled past makes her a prime candidate by the Vatican to become the next sentinel.

An excellent, creepy 70s classic from director Michael Winner that shouldn't be missed. I also recommended it for those who want something a little more imaginative beyond the usual stupid teenager slashers and horror comedy.

7 out of 10

-