Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Fine performances and art direction do not a good movie make. This movie is so grim and depressing, I could feel absolutely no joy at the "happy" ending involving the union strike. The attempts at humor involving Lake's pregnancy are absolutely disastrous, and any movie involving a Baldwin brother already has a strike against it. On a positive note, Lang is still one of America's great underrated actors, he alone almost makes this worth keeping in the VCR. I give this a 4.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.

The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.

For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like "Sixteen Candles" where the "f" word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.

I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.

"The Dream Machine" is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.

My score: 7 (out of 10)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I am sad to say that I disagree with other people on this Columbo episode. Death Lends a Hand is frankly kind of a boring Columbo to me. After a few times, I get bored and changed the channel. I still love Robert Culp and Patricia Crowley and Ray Milland in their roles but the story was weaker in this episode than in the others. First, Robert Culp plays an investigator for Ray Milland's character. He hires him to investigate his young pretty wife played by Patricia Crowley to see if she is having an affair. In return, Culp's character blackmails the cheating wife who plans to expose his scheme to her husband ruining his career. Out of anger, Culp kills her by striking her in the face and setting the up the body elsewhere. I don't know. Maybe I just didn't care for this one at all. Of course, Columbo gets him in the end. It's just the question of how.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I watched this movie on march 21 this year.Must say disappointment.But much better than "Tridev".Plot is hackneyed.Tells about Prabhat who lives with his father,Wife and his little brother.The movie opens when he saves a bride.Anyway.Azghar Jhurhad makes a plot to kill his young brother.He makes a plan by sending few man.They come to a school pretended to be Prabhats friends.Kill that kid.His father throws him out of the house.Then later comes back.He and Aakash go to Kenya to find him.Sunny gives a good performance,Chunky was annoying at best,Naseerdun is wasted.Divya did good,Sonam was wasted,Jyotsna was wasted but looked cute.The kid which played Sunnys brother in the movie was cute.Too sad he had to get his character killed.The girl was cute but was annoying.The other kid did good.Alok did good.Kiran was adequate.Amrish and Gulshan did good.The cinematography is excellent in both India and Kenya.Script is weak but has a few good dialogs.Also drags .The movie.The music was alright.I only liked one song"Saat Samundar" the lyrics of that song was good.The other songs were forgettable.Don't watch this. Rating-3/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This was one of the first CREEPY movies I ever saw...I was about 5 at the time. It scared me GOOD! But that night I put chewing gum in one eye to be like the monster...and my mom got very upset. She had to clean my eye with alcohol and the next day my eye smelled like DOUBLE MINT! NOW THAT'S A MOVIE! Hey for it's time it was a great movie. That Head sitting on the lab counter top was as real as it got back then. And IF your 5 it is VERY SCARY! Kids now a days are spoiled by special effects that show too much and leave NOTHING for your minds imagination. Your mind can imagine things more scarier than special effects! (IMO)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.

The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.

I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.

Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.

My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.

All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.

The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.

If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan.