Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Just got back from a free screening and I'm very glad I didn't pay to see this very sub-par film. The theater was full and the crowd was a mix of kids and adults. It seemed like it was just the kids who were laughing at all the slap-stick and fart jokes though (good god they loved to hit these poor mice in the crotch a lot!). The movie is pretty juvenile, unintelligent, predictable, and mostly annoying. The characters just seem to be thrown together to fill in empty space and the relationships between them all seemed very forced with no charm at all.

Visually, the film is about average with nothing that really stands out. They did a decent job of mimicking the clay look from Wallace and Gromit, but other than that it's very forgettable imagery.

Although I was really bored throughout the whole film, I chuckled a couple times. It's not an absolute failure, but I most definitely would not want to watch it again. If you're a parent with kids (and you don't care that your kids see mindless cheap-jokes) then feel free to take them to see it, but everyone else shouldn't waste their money.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I know, that's not what you expect from a film with this sort of

lineage- it's a direct descendant of The Best Years of Our Lives

and The Men... films dealing with men who are in the hospital

dealing with tragic circumstances. But this film is full of wonderful

surprises and performances. It features stellar performances from

Eric Stoltz and Helen Hunt (including a rather risque nude scene)

and Wesley Snipes and William Forsythe. As Emanuel Levy wrote

in his book Cinema of Outsiders (about the Independent film

movement) "The Waterdance is coherant, attentive to detail, and

unsentimental with a wicked down to earth humor- it' s at once

funny and sad, and the entire cast is impressive." I was

extraordinarily moved by this film, it's hard hitting yes, but also has

very tender moments and laugh out loud moments. A rare gem.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??

I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.

If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out....
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.

Succinctness?

Soul?

Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: "John Hughes' son wrote a high school drama! Wow!" I thought as I checked the flick's info here on IMDb, late on a Saturday night, having found myself watching the opening credits on BBC2.

I've just finished watching it, and sadly it was downhill from there on. Arguably you can't spoil a film this poor, but I'll leave the spoilers out of this review...

There's an awful lot of style over very little substance: unfortunately the style hasn't dated too well in the eight years since its release. As for the substance, the film tries to pose an interesting look at the nature of control in society through the microcosm of school-life; but beneath the shiny veneer, a remotely meaningful or relevant argument fails to materialise. Characters are painted in childishly broad strokes, falling into the kind of generic stereotypes the writer's father sought to question in Breakfast Club.

Director Kyle Cooper does a decent job keeping the pace up (perhaps relying a little too much on montages of information, which soon becomes a tiresome device, but at least pushes the story along), but his efforts don't sufficiently detract from the poor script and bizarre casting (how anyone is supposed to side with 'Maddox', when Blake Shields gurns and glowers his way through the part, I just can't understand), not to mention the numerous gaping plot holes (I'm all for creative license, but when the "bad guys" know the identities of the "good guys" making their lives a misery, but fail to act in any way to stop them, you really have to wonder why this script didn't undergo another few re-drafts before production - did Daddy even read it?).

I'm sure a younger audience might get some enjoyment from this film (and all power to them), but they're really better off sticking with Hughes Sr.'s high school output, and if the idea of school-time rebellion is what really appeals, the 1968 classic "If..." is a much more satisfying examination of the subject.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I found this family film to be pleasant and enjoyable even though I am not a child. It is based on the concept of a high school girl, Susan (Elisha Cuthbert) discovering that the elevator in her upper class apartment building becomes a time machine when a key on a key chain she got from a blind scientist is turned in the elevator lock. She learns how to control the machine (with some uncertainty about time of day).

The film is not a work of serious science fiction. You have to ignore the usual instability paradox associated with altering the past through time travel, i.e, the past is changed to prevent the 1881 Walker family from becoming poor, but the change means the family never got into financial trouble, so Victoria wouldn't have told Susan about the financial problems her mother had, which means that Susan shouldn't have had a reason to change the past in the first place! But other than that, there are some nice touches in the story, such as the old elevator panel, found in the apartment of the woman who secretly invented and installed the time machine, not having a space for the lock that activates the time machine feature. As in many stories for children, we need to also suppose that a child will not share startling information about a time travel device with a parent or other adult but instead hide the time traveler.

It also requires disregarding some poorly staged scenes and uninspired performances by some of the adult actors. (The child actors (Elisha Cuthbert, Gabrielle Boni, and Matthew Harbour) all were very convincing in their parts.) In one scene in the 1300s native Americans notice Susan observing and photographing them. But they don't register surprise in the sudden appearance of this blond, white skinned girl in peculiar dress. Their response is to simply stop what they are doing and to walk calmly towards Susan. In the same scene an Indian mother is carrying what is supposed to be a baby but is so obviously a doll (its white skinned and its head flops around).

Timothy Busfield, the award winning actor who originally came to fame in TV's old "Thirty Something," gives a somewhat uninteresting, sometimes listless, performance. In the other extreme Michel Perron hams it up as the Italian building superintendent (janitor), as does Richard Jutras in his role as a nosy neighbor. (The neighbor's name is Edward Ormondroyd, which is the name of the author of the novel the film is based on.) I suspect that these problems may be the fault either of the director or possible of a low budget.

Despite these flaws, I recommend the movie for kids. In addition to the interesting story, it also has some educational value, in that it points out how much both technology and social norms have changed in little more that 100 years.