Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: If it were possible to distill the heart and soul of the sport--no, the pure lifestyle--of surfing to its perfect form, this documentary has done it. This documentary shows the life isn't just about the waves, but it's more about the people, the pioneers, and the modern day vanguard that are pushing the envelope of big wave further than it's ever been.

Stacy Peralta--a virtual legend from my early '80s skateboarding days as a SoCal teen--has edited reams of amazing stock and interview footage down to their essence and created what is not just a documentary, but a masterpiece of the genre. When his heart and soul is in the subject matter--and clearly it is here--his genius is fraught with a pure vision that doesn't glamorize, hype, or sentimentalize his subject. He reveres surfers and the surfing/beach lifestyle, but doesn't whitewash it either. There is a gritty reality to the sport as well.

There is so much that could be said about this documentary, about the surfers, the early history of the sport, and the wild big wave surfers it profiles. Greg Noll, the first big wave personality who arguably pioneered the sport; Jeff Carter, an amazing guy who rode virtually alone for 15 years on Northern California's extremely dangerous Maverick's big surf; and, the centerpiece of the documentary, Laird Hamliton, big wave surfing's present day messiah.

There is tremendous heart and warmth among all these guys--and a few girls who show up on camera--and a deep and powerful love for surfing and the ocean that comes through in every word. I found the story of how Hamilton's adopted father met him and how Hamilton as a small 4- or 5-year old boy practically forced him to be his dad especially heartwarming (and, again, stripped of syrupy sentimentality).

If you like surfing--or even if you don't--this is a wonderful documentary that must be watched, if only because you're a student of the form or someone who simply appreciates incredibly well-done works of art.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: An apparent vanity project for Karin Mani (who?), as a hottie Charles Bronson going around wiping up the 'scum' that mugged her parents, or grandparents or something, and impressing young hunks with her karate skills. In a pivotal scene she intervenes to stop a rape and a moron cop throws HER in jail, so after a couple cool shower scenes and some abortive prison-dyke seduction she has to take the law into her own hands blah blah blah. I guess there were a lot of movies like this? The script is dumber than usual if you can believe that. Mani comes off as exactly the kind of showbiz type that would co-produce her own Death Wish starring role, and I find that type sporadically endearing, but the movie is an ungainly apparatus. Competent actors would be wasted on the scumbag roles here, and would actively undermine the fantastic mincing-incompetent DA and a judge that has got to be the producer's uncle.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).

For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I had no real expectations going into this movie and I'm glad. Even if I had expected it to be bad I would have been disappointed.

Where to start? First, I think 15% of the movie consisted of stock footage of stationary scarecrows in a dark jungle-field. I get it. There's scarecrows. I think the title "Scarecrows" was sufficient.

Second, not a damn thing is ever explained regarding the scarecrows and paranormal occurrences. There's too many times where I was left going WTF?

Third, the movie takes itself seriously. I'm all for a B-movie with buckets of blood, screaming women, and senseless violence that is the result of a simple psychopath or ancient curse. But those movies often know they're B-movies and even flaunt it, like Dead Snow (hilarious Scandanavian zombie flick) or Evil Dead 2. But this movie seems oblivious to its crapdom.

Finally, there should of been more blood and/or nudity. Yea, I said it. If you're going to have a crap horror movie, make with the killing. And if you're going to have one hot and one semi-hot girl, one of them needs to show some side-boob at a minimum.

So, like the summary says, skip "Scarecrows" and just poke yourself in the eye. You'll thank me.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.