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

Answer: Went to see the movie "Troy" this afternoon. Here's what I learned:

Contrary to popular opinion and history in general, Greek men were not gay. EVER. This was clearly established immediately at the start of the film and reinforced every five minutes or so thereafter. So it is safe for American dudes to see this movie.

Helen of Troy always had impeccable hair and makeup. She looked gorgeous in all of her brief cameo scenes which, though numerous, were probably all filmed on the same day, one after the other, with the director saying, "Alright, now look beautiful . . . good ... OK, now look frightened ... good... now look depressed ... good ... now look interested . . . good ... now look beautiful again ... good..."

Most Greek and Trojan men had British accents. Those with American accents couldn't act.

Trojans looked just like Greeks, but they tended to stay on the right side of the screen.

Brad Pitt does not blink on camera.

Helen of Troy's biggest line was, "They're coming for me."

Trojan music sounded remarkably like modern Bulgarian music.

Brad Pitt's thighs go all the way up.

Achilles had a young male friend with whom he was very close, but it's OK. They were cousins. Never mind what history says.

Peter O'Toole can tell an entire story with just an expression.

Trojan gods apparently all had Greek names, but their statues either looked Egyptian or like Peter O'Toole in drag.

Greek men never touched each other unless they were fighting, much like American men.

All of the thousands of extras in the movie had exactly the same skin color... Light Egyptian, by Max Factor.

Troy had only three women.

There were lots of blond Greeks, which is good news for Brad Pitt, who would otherwise have really stuck out.

Despite their coastal desert locale, Greeks had the uncanny ability to find unlimited amounts of timber to build fires, funeral pyres, Trojan horses and the like.

British actors look silly with Greek hairdos.

Brad Pitt changes expression only when the sun is shining directly in his eyes.

Greek soldiers fought constantly, but their outfits always looked impeccable.

Greek soldiers wore underwear under their skirts.

Apparently Greek temples were always in ruins, even back when they were all new.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Starfucker (which reads Starstruck on my box) was the most amazing movie I have ever seen. I thought that it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. So why not a 10? Nothing is perfect. Jamie Kennedy proves why he is one of my favorite actors in this very interesting look at a darker side of Hollywood. I have forced a few others to watch the movie and they all agreed that it was an outstanding flick.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Hey now, I can't claim to have seen all of the films of Jesse (Jesus) Franco, and there sure seem to be a lot of them, but this is one of the better (and weirder) of the lot that I have seen. I'd say most likely he was in his prime back in the late sixties/early seventies and anything lately has been a bit TOO strange for me, and it takes a lot for me to declare that. Anyway, this is like one big bad dream where parts of it seem to come true at various points. This woman is an actress or something, performs in some theater in Berlin where acts of "fake" torture are performed for an appreciative audience (?!) and she seems to have this problem with dreaming. The catch to what's real and what's not in this movie is apparently the real stuff is in sharp focus and the dream stuff isn't. She seems to exist in a state of deja vu. I won't say this makes a whole lot of sense but it is pretty wild and weird and entertaining. Shots of Berlin make it seem like a lonely and creepy place, so that adds to the atmosphere. The ending is extremely abrupt though, the film just ends and the tape went black, I guess no need to let you know it was over at that point. My copy was from the Anchor Bay Euro-Trash collection, and I say, give me more Euro-Trash, I can't get enough of that crap. But it's GOOD crap.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The easiest way to describe this movie is as a satire. The target of the satire is quite vast, from the US Government to corporate America. It is also not a stinging satire, but rather a silly one.

Think of this movie as a mix between the Kentucky Fried movie, Airplane and Police Squad series, done with a much smaller budget and not as funny. I can see how this movie is a satire of many sci-fi disaster movies from the 50's and 60's. I see this movie as a big influence on Tim Burton's Mars Attacks.

The plot is simple enough. Genetically engineered giant tomatoes go "crazy" and start attacking people and cities. At first there is a cover up and then it blows over into full blown war.

The movie runs the gamut of characters and characterizations : Lois "Fairchild" (a Lois Lane clone), a very ambitious Presidential Press Secretary, Clark Kent, Mason Dixon (FIA agent who hasn't worked since the Bay of Pigs), a useless President (who only seems to be able to sign his name and attack New York), an even inept Congress, a sleazy marketing CEO, and Mason's team consisting of an obese East German "female" swimmer, a scuba diver, a crazed WWII paratrooper and an African-American disguise expert (disguised as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler and finally as a tomato). Did I also forget to mention, lots and lots of tomatoes? There are all kinds of tomatoes from small tomatoes, to giant plastic tomatoes, to smashed tomatoes, to tomato juice and finally to people dressed up as tomatoes.

On top of all this, you have a couple of musical numbers as well. They aren't that good and seem to be dubbed. The best tune is by far the theme of the movie ("Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"). It is way too catchy and you might end up humming or singing it in public. Be warned.

Most of the movie is quite amusing and shows the absurdity of various real life situations as well as various entertainment genres. I don't believe I was induced to laughter, but mostly smiled and scratched my head. I definitely recommend this movie for fans of B and C grade movies, but only as a rental.

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

Answer:
I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully I might say lovingly made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.

If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.

Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.

The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.

Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.

But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy!"