Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This could be a 10 if it wasn't for the quite predictable and hollywood-ish scenario. Daniel Day-Lewis confirms its position as one of the leading actors of our time (why not THE leading may I ask) and the rest of the cast stand in a very high level. I personally was impressed with Hugh O' Connor who played Christy Brown as a child. The very first scene I watched him was really strong. Wow.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When I saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 1995 via a free advanced screening, I was totally enchanted and would have gladly paid to see it. I was sorry when I talked to many people afterwards who had also seen it and who were totally disappointed with it and how it ended. I, on the other hand, felt completely the opposite. I was totally satisfied with the outcome and everything else. People I talked to said there was too much talking! Plus they were unhappy because they felt that the ending left you wondering about the fate of the two characters. I found these observations to be absurd and to also be painful evidence of how the majority of the American movie-going public seems to have a tendency to want easy-to-follow stories in films with not too much complex and intelligent dialogue lest they get confused. They also like to be spoon-fed tidy endings--happy OR sad. This disgusts me. Nobody wants to be challenged anymore??? And as for the ending (and I don't want to be a spoiler), I am totally content because I know in my heart that these two characters WILL see each other again. It's all about your own personal faith in romance and destiny. It's a very personal film that doesn't speak to all people. But it certainly spoke to me. Give it a chance! Be patient with it! Richard Linklater has crafted a very lovely film with a beautiful story set against the beautiful background of the city of Vienna. Watching it makes you feel as if you yourself are strolling through the city streets along with the characters. As if you yourself were tripping through Europe on a Eurail pass. It's very intimate. Plus, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy do an exquisite job of bringing the complex script to life. They must have improvised during some parts and it works well. They have a great chemistry in their roles. Their awkwardness as strangers getting to know each other in the beginning is very believable and you can truly feel the romance and bonding develop between them as the movie progresses. I get the feeling that this was a very personal work for Mr. Linklater and I deeply respect him for getting this film made. It definitely touched me and I hope it touches others just as much. Bravo for romance!!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
No one would argue that this 1945 war film was a masterpiece. (How could any 1945 war film be a masterpiece?) And yet this is an extremely effective telling of a true story, that of Al Schmidt, blinded on Guadalcanal, as played by John Garfield, who spent days wearing a blindfold to capture the nuances of a blind person's actions. Robert Leckie, in "Helmet for My Pillow",denigrates Schmidt's popularity in favor of his foxhole mate, who was killed, writing that "the country must have needed live heroes."

Well, I suppose the country did. And they had one here. There is a single combat scene in the movie, bound to the studio lot, lasting only ten minutes or so, and occurring less than halfway through the film instead of being saved for the climax, but it is the scariest and most realistic depiction of men under fire that I can remember having seen on screen, including those in "Saving Private Ryan". Men yell with fear, scream at each other and at the enemy, and bleed and die, without the aid of color, stereophonic sound, squibs, or gore.

Simply from a technological point of view, the film is outstanding. It isn't just that we learn how complicated a mechanism a .30 caliber, water-cooled Browning machine gun is, or that it must be fired in bursts of only a few rounds, or that it isn't waved around like a fire hose, as in so many other war movies. The technical precision adds to the scene's riveting quality. The need to stick to short bursts is horrifying when dozens of shrieking enemies are pouring across a creek fifty feet away with the sole aim of exterminating you and your two isolated comrades confined to a small gun emplacement.

The performances are solid, if not bravura, including those of the ubiquitous 1940s support, John Ridgeley, and a radiant, youthful Eleanor Parker. The framing love story is spare, but it works, and ultimately is quite moving. A striking dream sequence is included. It's not Bunuel, but for a routine 1945 film, it stands out as original and effective.

Albert Maltz may have overwritten the script, or it may have been altered by someone else. It could have used the kind of pruning that might have introduced some much needed ambiguity. Still, there are odd verbal punctuations that have a surprising impact on the viewer -- "Why don't God strike me dead?" And, "In the eyes, Lee. Get 'em in the eyes!" Depths of anguish in a few corny words. And a surprising amount of bitterness expressed by wounded veterans in a 1945 war film.

Notes that might seem false to a contemporary viewer but perhaps shouldn't: the dated vernacular which it's difficult to believe many of today's kids could think was actually ever spoken -- "private gab," "dope", "drip," "Gee," "you dumb coot," "dame," "a swell guy," and "feeling sorry for yourself." Let us consider the historical context and be kind in our judgments. At the time, some of this goofy lingo was at the cutting edge.

Real weak points? The wounded veterans get together and argue with each other about how much of a collective future they have and the argument is oversimply resolved with a conclusion along the lines of, "Just because you have a silver plate in your head doesn't mean people will think you're a bad person." There are sometimes voice overs and silent prayers that are both unnecessary and downright unimaginative. "Please, God, let him return to me," and that sort of thing.

Well, the film makers were operating within the constraints of their times. Maybe that's why the final fade is on a shot of Independence Hall and the inspiring strains of "America the Beautiful" swell in the back.

None of this can undo the film's virtues, which are considerable, particularly the impact of that horrifying combat scene. It's not on television that often. If you have a chance, by all means catch it.