Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I am a big fan of the movie, but not for the usual reasons. I think Travolta and Winger performed at higher than average rates, I think the sets were representative of the location and the era, I liked the sound track and the Charlie Daniels Band. However, I think the photography was amazing! Since the interior scenes were filmed in the actual club and Gilley's had low ceilings--perhaps 10-12 feet high and the smoke that was supposed to simulate a "smoke-filled bar" hung 2-4 feet below the ceiling. The Camera managed to get shots through the smoke and focus on the actors, the bull, the bar, the women, the dancing, the low-level of light that actually was in the bar! What a feat! Sure there was auxiliary lighting, but in order to maintain the atmosphere of the bar, it had to be low-light shots. Ray Villalobos (the camera operator) was outstanding! He got some shots he had no hope of achieving and the impact of them brought a sense of reality to the film. Thanks, Ray--Great work!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.

They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.

What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?"
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is like marmite. You either love it or you hate it. If you go into this film expecting a proper film with decent production values, a good plot and great characters you'll hate it. If you go into this film expecting a low budget slasher you'll probably hate it.

If you go into this film expecting to see one of the most deranged characters ever put to film in the form of Harry Russo you will love it. John Giancaspro is absolutely brilliant in his over the top portrayal of the insane, murderous coke fiend.

The special effects are abysmal at best but really, who cares? If you're the kind of person who's prepared to watch a film Schizophreniac: The Whore Mangler you've undoubtedly seen scores of horror films filled with gore. With the budget this film was made for even if they had tried it probably would've mediocre at best. I'd much rather be able to laugh at something abysmal than be unaffected by the mediocre.

To sum it up, you'll probably hate this film but if you're one of the few who decide to see it anyway it'll become the best thing since sliced bread #2 I hate marmite.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Absolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I saw this film for the very first time several years ago - and was hooked up in an instant. It is great and much better than J. F. K. cause you always have to think 'Can it happen to me? Can I become a murderer?' You cannot turn of the TV or your VCR without thinking about the plot and the end, which you should'nt miss under any circumstances.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).

I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.

My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.

Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.