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

A: ] Haven't seen this film? Haven't even heard of this film? It wouldn't surprise me. One of the few truly "independent" films produced in the last ten years, no studio had faith in the picture and it was never picked up for major distribution. The independent company Kino Films, gave BOESMAN AND LENA a very limited run with virtually no promotion, and the majority of major film critics didn't even bother reviewing it. I guess a movie based on a one act, one set play about the apartheid and its affect on two individuals never really had a chance in today's market - and it's the intelligent film-lover's loss.

For the record, both Angela Bassett and Danny Glover deserved Ocsar nominations (as did the cinematographer) but the film received such little fanfare that I can't even blame the academy on that one. This is a film that is challenging, thought-provoking, and heartbreaking, and it actually requires the audience to meet it on it's own terms. Taking that into consideration, it is definitely not a movie for mindless entertainment. Director John Berry wisely does not attempt to dress-up Athol Fugard's play. Sure, we're given a few fractured flashbacks and some breathtaking scenic shots, but the film version of BOESMAN AND LENA remains, on the whole, a story of two people living in inhumane conditions.

Stripped of their basic human rights, Boesman (Glover) and Lena (Bassett) have no one left to attack but each other. A third character joins them for awhile (Willie Jonah, amazing in a largely silent role), but the film's focus never strays from the title characters and what they've become. Bassett and Glover give brave performances as the broken couple, performances that simply could not be improved upon. Vigorously and brutally stimulating, both intellectually and emotionally, BOESMAN AND LENA deserves to be rediscovered of home video. Hands down, the best film of the year 2000.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.

Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.

Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.

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

Answer: Riveting drama, scripted by William Mastrosimone based on his stage play, in which Farrah Fawcett plays Marjorie, attacked in her car by rapist Joe (James Russo). She manages to get away but the cops inform her that there is nothing they can do. She realizes, however, that Joe did get her wallet and knows where she lives. When her housemates Pat (Alfre Woodard) and Terry (Diana Scarwid) are off at work, Joe pays her a visit to finish what he started. After Joe humiliates and degrades her in a variety of ways, she gets a chance to strike back at him and imprisons him. Knowing full well she's in another "his word against yours" situation and that no rape technically took place, she has no intention of taking it easy on him until he confesses to Pat and Terry what his intentions were.

The movie ultimately amounts to a showdown between its two opponents. As it goes on, Marjorie displays such ruthlessness that one has to wonder if she hasn't become as unhinged as her nemesis. Fawcett does a creditable enough job, while Russo is truly excellent as the depraved creep who does his best to manipulate the situation. With only two characters on screen for much of the running time, the film has an intimate nature that does suggest that it would work even better on stage. Director Robert M. Young doesn't shy away from the uglier and more exploitative elements of the situation; the film does become uncomfortable to watch at times. And by the time Marjorie has the upper hand, things change enough so that it no longer becomes quite so easy to encourage her to go for blood, and one hopes that Pat can make her see reason.

"Extremities", I felt, was a pretty good movie that at least maintained interest and a fairly high level of intensity. Woodard and Scarwid are both fine in support (Scarwid has a great moment where Terry reveals herself to be a rape victim), and the pace is consistent. Granted, the dialog isn't always very sharp, but the material is compelling every step of the way.

8/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.