Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astree et de Celadon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfe's "L'astree", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).

In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).

The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astree" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I've seen this movie more than once. It was on par with a lot of the spooky stuff that was being shown in television movies back then. The only problem I had was with the title for the obvious reasons... One immediately thinks of the famous snack cake by Drake's! Leaving off the first part, 'Hound of Hell' would have sufficed.

Richard Crenna always manages to bring a sense of seriousness to anything he does, anyway - whether the plot is good or bad. But this was an enjoyable Halloween fare offered by the CBS network. I loved the part where Crenna takes a flight to some obscure country to find the mystic who would help him conquer the evil beast. He asks the cab driver how to find this guy. Great dialogue between the native cab driver and Crenna in terms of the cabby dissing his own people's ethnic beliefs. 'Aw, Mr. Barry, I left that stuff behind when I came down from the mountains...' - referring to the mystic who rarely sees or advises people, and nobody knows how to really contact him.

As far as supernatural fare goes, this movie is still enjoyable.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A stunning film of high quality.

Apparently based on true events which, as told, has the clear ring of truth about it, this movie is highly emotional and deeply moving.

An abused and neglected child often becomes wayward in adulthood, as one of life's failures, be it as a gangster, drug addict or burden on society.

Antwone Fisher as a young adult in the navy, is troubled. He is on the brink of being a loser. He is counselled in therapy by a psychiatrist and it is that relationship which takes center stage in the play.

In flash-backs and therapy the source and remedies to Antwones angst are revealed.

Outstanding performances from the whole cast. The story is in effect a family tragedy with emotional and physical torment. All the actors give full blooded performances with conviction and realism.

One message from the movie is the importance of raising children decently.

The real Antwone deserves success. To have endured wickedness as a child but to rise above that, shows a magnificent character.

And to all those out there who have endured such torment but to have survived and succeeded: you are all winners. 10 out of 10.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This was the best movie I've ever seen about Bulimia. It hit the exact spot of what Bulimia is really about and how it's not always about being skinny and dieting. It showed how people with Bulimia tend to think about things such as their outlook on life, friends and themselves. The best line and the part that really shows what the problem with Bulimia is, is when Beth says,"It's not about you!" That line really showed a lot about the character and others with the same problem. It showed that people with Bulimia don't have this problem because of anything that has to do with anyone else. It has to do with them and them only. It shows that it's time to talk about the person with the problem instead of putting the attention all on themselves. It showed that Beth needed to call out for attention at that moment and she needed her mom's attention at that time the most.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: On the surface, "Written on the Wind" is a lurid, glossy soap opera about the sexual dysfunctions of a Texas oil family. But underneath it all is a deep, social commentary on 1950's life. Director Douglas Sirk scores again with another Univeral sudser. Robert Stack falls in love with Lauren Bacall. The problem is that Stack's best pal, Rock Hudson, loves her too. When Stack finds out he's sterile and Bacall ends up pregnant, the fireworks fly. And, the all-too-good Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for her portrayl of Texas' biggest nympho who is shunned by Hudson. Good epic soap opera.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Disappearance is set in the Mojave desert as Jim (Harry Hamlin) & Patty Henley (Susan Dey) plus their two kids Katie (Basia A'Hern) & Matt (Jeremey Lelliott) along with Ethan (Jamie Croft) a friend of the family are travelling along, they stop at a roadside diner & ask about an old deserted mining town on the map called Weaver. No-one claims to have heard of it but it's definitely there & the family decide to take a detour in order to check it out & take some pictures. Once at the town they take some pictures & have a look around but when it comes time to leave their car won't start & they have to spend the night there. While looking around they find a camcorder videotape which they play only to discover footage of a scared woman saying all her friends have disappeared, the next morning & their car has disappeared as things take a very sinister turn. What is Weaver's secret? Will the Henley's ever leave there alive...

Written, co-executive produced & directed by Walter Klenhard I have to say that Disappearance is one of the most frustrating films I have ever watched. For the first 85 minutes it was a pretty good mysterious mix of thriller & horror film but then we are treated to one of the single worst endings ever in motion picture history. The script suggest lots of different things but never elaborates or confirms & I was sitting there genuinely intrigued about what was going on, from the families car mysterious disappearing, the four recent graves, the thing in the abandoned mines, the supernatural sandstorm, the sudden & unexplained disappearance of Ethan & his just as unexplained reappearance, the Sheriff's sinister motives, the compass in the car going crazy, the crashed plane, the townspeople denying Weaver existed & the possible side effects of a neutron bomb being dropped near Weaver in the 40's but they are all tossed out of the window & for all we know could have been totally separate random events. Everything was coming along nicely & was set up for a big twist revelation but none was forthcoming & instead I was treated to the most ambiguous, strange, surreal & downright frustrating ending possible. If nothing else the ending contradicts much of what has gone before & leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. It's almost as if the makers had these great ideas but then didn't know what to do with them & just made the ending up on the spot. I just felt I put so much effort into watching the film which can be pretty slow at times without any sort of reward & in fact the ending felt more like a kick in the teeth or a good two finger salute!

Director Klenhard does a reasonable job here, the old ghost town has a certain atmosphere & the large expansive desert locations give a good sense of isolation. It's well made but what were they thinking with that ending? Nothing fits, nothing makes sense & it's just a huge frustrating mess that after sitting through the thing for nearly an hour & a half leaves you confused & wanting to know more. Despite being a horror film there's no blood or gore although there are one or two creepy moments here & there. The film actually reminds of The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake for large parts as that is what the film is set-up to be before a bizarre ending which does nothing to bring any closure to the film.

Technically the film is good with high production values, good special effects, sets, locations & cinematography. Set in America but filmed in South Australia. The acting is fine from a decent cast.

Disappearance is a really odd film, for a long time it shapes up to be a neat little horror mystery thriller but it never explains anything which happens & the truly surreal ending just throws up more questions than answers. I really can't see anyone making head nor tail of this, I really can't.