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

Answer: ****Excellent

***Good

**Fair

*Poor

'Go Ahead, make my Day!'

The fourth picture in the series is directed by Eastwood himself (Who was rumored of directing most of Magnum Force) and he brings back the violent society from the first two films. However, the film still lacks impact and believability. This film was released in the early '80s, the time of Regan and the young republicans. The premise of a raped woman taking vengeance on her rapist doesn't appeal to this time frame. This plot would have been better for the Enforcer, which actually would have made it a good movie. What Sudden Impact needed was a plot like in Wall Street but with Dirty Harry in the middle.

RATING: 3 STARS
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs.

Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.

All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"

See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.

Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.

I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a positive review in the New York Times. In addition, I'm also Shanghainese so there was more than just a passing interest in the subject matter. However, after watching it, I was extremely disappointed.

The movie's pace was excruciatingly slow and monotonous. The director lingered on certain scenes for much too long. There was no passion or chemistry between the lovers. There was barely any dialogue. Dialogue was sorely needed to compensate for the lack of acting. At the end of the movie, you didn't feel any compassion for the characters. This movie was lacking in everything. The script was weak, the acting was poor, and the editing was non-existent. The director tried to emulate certain noir film styles but failed miserably. A good movie is one in which captures your attention, maintains it and is successful in concluding without you feeling time has passed by. This movie felt as though it would never end. Don't waste your money on this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.

I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.

Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
In answer to the person who made the comment about how the film drags on and who believed there was no purpose to the role of Jess's brother here is my response:

The role of Jess's brother is to provide a form of dramatic irony in the story. Craig Sheffer/Norman could have foreseen the troubles associated with living life to the full by looking at how Jess's brother turned out. There are various instances where Brad Pitt and his lives run in parallel, for example, when Jess's brother takes Craig Sheffer to a disjointed bar and subsequently he finds Brad Pitt there a few days later. The dramatic irony was there so Craig Sheffer's character would have a bigger emotional turmoil at his brothers death, knowing he could have done more to prevent it and subsequently creates a more compelling mood in the film.