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

Answer: I went to see Hamlet because I was in between jobs. I figured 4 hours would be great, I've been a fan of Branagh; Dead Again, Henry V. I was completely overwhelmed by the direction, acting, cinematography that this film captured. Like other reviews the 4 hours passes swiftly. Branagh doesn't play Hamlet, he is Hamlet, he was born for this. When I watch this film I'm constantly trying to find faults, I've looked at the goofs and haven't noticed them. How he was able to move the camera in and out of the Hall with all the mirrors is a mystery to me. This movie was shot in 70 mil. It's a shame that Columbia hasn't released a Widescreen version of this on VHS. I own a DVD player, and I'd take this over Titanic any day. So Columbia if you're listening put this film out the way it should be watched! And I don't know what happened at the Oscars. This should have swept Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Direction, best cinematography. What films were they watching? I felt sorry for Branagh at the Oscars when he did a tribute to Shakespeare on the screen. They should have been giving a tribute to Branagh for bringing us one of the greatest films of all time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.

I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.

So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.

I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Looking at some of the negative posts, you really have to wonder what some people do for fun....

I was lucky enough to see the film during its all-too-brief theatrical run. The audience laughed its heads off. I'm watching a tape of it as I type and it's still dang funny!

It's also got a sweet side, with unexpected turns of genuine pathos. The late, great Royal Dano is especially effective as the lonely, down-on-his-luck farmer Wrenchmuller. Ariana Richards and J.J. Anderson are great as the lead kids. And the actors in the Martian suits, although limited to mime, do a great job

Another thing to look for is the background details. The film is full of homages, pastiches, and references to other SF and fantasy films. Take a look at the Martian costumes next time. One of them is wearing a Marty McFly costume, another is a Ghostbuster, a third is in a House Atreides uniform, and a fourth is wearing a Last Starfighter flightsuit.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.

Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .

Obligatory Horror Elements:

- Subgenre: Slasher

- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.

- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.

- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.

- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.

- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.

- - -

Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug!

-AP3-
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie as a "Premiere Surprise" that is we bought at ticket to the preview to a movie before it opened here in Denmark. We sat through the 1st hour or so and then we left! The point of the movie seemed to be simply to portray the era (and club 54), but it did so at the expence of character development, of which there was none, and plot of which there was little.

Seldom have I been so indifferent to the characters in a movie!

The music was good though. So if you like to hear some good music and get a fix of that 70ies mood I guess it is OK. But don't expect to get a plot of believable characters.