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

Answer: When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, "have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. "Pure cinema" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart!

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

Answer: For those with little time on their hands, I'll sum it up quickly, in one word...pathetic. There are a lot of good examples as to why this movie fits perfectly under that description. So much so that you can barely go through 2 minutes of screen time without seeing something completely stupid and pointless forced upon you. Want a fully naked woman in the first 10 minutes? You got it! The reason she appears is so pointless though that it really sets the tone for the rest of this piece of juvenile crap. You can almost glimpse into the deluded minds of the 12 year old boys that wrote this piece of garbage just by watching this crap that they expect the public to actually pay for!!??!!!

I've watched many a movie franchise decline over the years, but American Pie;Beta House has to be one of the worst offenders when you consider that despite the average nature of the original movie, it's still a thousand times funnier than this dreck.

The plot is predictable, and sometimes you actually feel like you're watching a school play. The things that happen in this movie are so unrealistic that it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to actually watch it (we're talking Star Wars levels of suspension, like the kind you need to convince yourself Jar Jar is real)

The plot is paper thin and mostly the events that transpire are only there to show another pair of breasts or set up yet another pathetic joke. There is no acting talent to speak of, all you get is a bunch of pretty boys trying to make us laugh. And ohhh how they fail!!!! Every gag falls flat and the only thing I laughed at was how socially unaware the scriptwriters appear to be. How else can you explain the bulls**t they try to pass off as a story?

They pass up every opportunity to do something worthwhile and entertaining in favour of badly written, lowest common denominator nonsense. The characters have to complete a set number of tasks before they are accepted as members of Beta House, but this is dealt with mostly by a series of very brief montages that imply that they are completing the tasks but we see little to no evidence of it actually happening. Its a very lazy way of telling a story. It also misses opportunities to be funny in doing so.(Imagine say The Wizard of Oz where all the important events happened offscreen instead of on it, and all we see is Dorothy high-fiving the Scarecrow every now and again and saying "Gee that sure was a great adventure we just had back then") Lazy. Lazy. LAZY!!!!

The female characters have little or nothing to say. All they do is get naked for no apparent reason and are used as visual props through most of the movie. You braindeads that only seek T&A will not be disappointed, but for that reason alone shame on you. If you buy this on DVD you will be contributing to the downfall of society in your own special way. Congratulations.

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

Answer: A young woman comes to the home town of his husband after he passed away in an accident. She barely settles down in this small town, but shortly after, loses her little son in a kidnapping and all her hopes... This could lead to all kinds following plots in a normal movie: find a new partner and being happy finally; or depressed enough to struggle and finally kill herself... She does try to kill herself, but not after a series of severe fights, with God. She trusts in God, only to find that God seems to forgive everyone, even the killer. Well, I should be careful here about God, the movie doesn't mean a thing against God. The way the movie deals the issue is quite interesting: not in the woman's point of view or from God's perspective (in this way, there would be lots of grass growing, clouds flying views, I suppose). Rather, it's from a third party's eye, the movie let us to perceive and doesn't explain a thing.

The movie wouldn't be so interesting were there only the woman. There's this man who's everywhere around the woman and obviously in love with her, but in his own way. He's a funny guy, like a clown I should say, who shamelessly hangs around our heroine. The combination of these two, the woman full of tension, crying and throwing up always, and the man, smiling and talking stupidly, ends up in a good balance of emotions: nothing absurdly wrong or too tedious.

Highly recommend.

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

Answer:
We saw the silent version of this film, and it is quite simply shimmeringly beautiful. It's quite hard to see how a sound version could have been created, since it is shot with pure silent technique, long wordless sweeps of narrative without a single intertitle -- save for a few disconcerting sequences where Louise Brooks, playing a French typist, is quite visibly speaking in English... The only section that obviously cries out for sound is the final scene, where Brooks is watching the rushes for her test 'for a sound film': footage which plays constantly in the background as the action unfolds, with her mouth moving in ceaseless soundless song. I was unsurprised to learn afterwards that this passage alone in the talkie version had been hailed as an exemplar of new technique!

In the sunny beauty of its opening scenes and the fairy-tale inevitability of what follows, the film resembles a dream. As a 'Louise Brooks movie' it was not at all what I was expecting, either from her Hollywood comedies or from G.W.Pabst's German melodramas: I found the idiom more fluent and enjoyable than either, and Brooks herself is a different creature, a sturdy laughing young animal rather than a shop-window vamp or manipulated doll.

But what gives this film greater depth than at first appears is the unexpected second half; repelled by the rich parasites who cluster around her beauty, the pauper princess returns to a tear-stained reunion with her humbly-born true love... and the tale might very well have been ended there. Fairy-tale, however, turns to tragedy. The dilettante Grabovsky, confident in his ability to manipulate the woman he desires, is yet all too correct in his self-interested prediction -- the young lovers cannot make each other happy -- and Andre, ironically, was right to mistrust the social influence of beauty contests: after the intoxication of her moment's glory, Lucienne frets herself to despair over the humdrum routine of married life while her husband, in turn, is driven wild by any reminder of the whole affair. If it were a simple case of a mis-matched marriage, that would be one thing... but the true tragedy is that they do love each other.

In many ways "Prix de Beaute" reminds me of Murnau's "Sunrise". But if so, the fairground and photographer scenes here would form a distorted mirror-image of the joyous reconciliation in "Sunrise"; no dream but an alienating nightmare. And the following dawn brings not a miraculous reunion but an empty bed and deserted home. Leaving a letter to say that she loves him and will always love him, Lucienne vanishes again from Andre's life in quest of brightness and freedom; and this time she will never come back.

Gossip columns confirm all Andre's worst convictions, as he learns of his wife's whereabouts through reports coupling her name with Grabovsky. When the young workman penetrates at last to the lavish sanctum of the screening-room, it is with drawn gun -- to be greeted by the sight of his rival courting and caressing a laughing Lucienne, the same woman who had pledged her undying affection as she left him. He kills her, but even as he kills is transfixed by the living image on screen, Lucienne in all her transformed glory as he never saw her. The two women are juxtaposed in an endless, powerful moment, as Andre is seen, seized, unresisting, and pulled away: the dying girl and her singing self still projected above, caught unknowing out of time into celluloid eternity, playing on unconscious of life or death or love beneath her...

The main jarring element in the film is the character of Andre's co-worker Antonin, who appears to serve no role throughout other than to be the licensed butt of his contemporaries' malice. He is the ugly one who can never get the girl, the ungainly wimp who is tripped and tormented in the washrooms and at work, and must take it all with an uncertain ingratiating smile in his fruitless hope for social acceptance: a typical product of the bullying of the more gifted and popular, in other words, but one the audience is apparently being invited to laugh at along with his tormentors. Unless the intention is to expose a darker side to the protagonists (for which I perceive no sign), the character seems to exist merely as comic relief, but comic relief with a distinctly nasty edge. When we know him only as an inept Peeping Tom at the waterside, it's easy to laugh, although the others' revenge seems a little over the top; when we discover that he is no chance-met stranger but Andre's colleague and regular sidekick, the continuing attacks rapidly cease to be very funny.

But it is the images that remain. Beauty, nightmare, and dream.