Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I grew up watching this movie ,and I still love it just as much today as when i was a kid. Don't listen to the critic reviews. They are not accurate on this film.Eddie Murphy really shines in his roll.You can sit down with your whole family and everybody will enjoy it.I recommend this movie to everybody to see. It is a comedy with a touch of fantasy.With demons ,dragons,and a little bald kid with God like powers.This movie takes you from L.A. to Tibet , of into the amazing view of the wondrous temples of the mountains in Tibet.Just a beautiful view! So go do your self a favor and snatch this one up! You wont regret it!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.

It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.

I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
This is the first of "The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare" BBC series I've seen, and if all of them are like this, I might watch no more. Being practically the full text of the play is everything this "Romeo & Juliet" has going for it, lacking in all other departments. Alvin Rakoff reveals himself as a dreadful director, both in the technical and artistic aspects. In the former, because he commits mistakes that even a first grade film student would wisely avoid. Take in consideration, for example, the badly edited first shot of Abraham and Balthasar in the opening scene, or the Nurse's entering of Friar Lawrence's cell, asking where's Romeo with him being so very in front of her that she'd clearly see him even if she was blind. And, in the latter, because every single one of the performers is misdirected, even if some of them are good actors. Rebecca Saire looks exactly the way I've always imagined Juliet to look like, and she doesn't seem to be a bad actress for a teenager, but her performance totally lacks passion of any kind. Patrick Ryecart as Romeo is even worse, being not only as dull as Juliet, but also way too old and not even good-looking, coming across as a combination of Malcolm McDowell and the Chucky doll. Putting them together makes impossible to think they feel anything for each other, let alone being the main players of the greatest love story ever written. Alan Rickman, in his screen debut, plays Tybalt like if he was Darth Vader, which is a huge mistake that takes away the complexity that Shakespeare intended, no character being a hero or a villain but all flawed human beings. This Tybalt is so mean-looking that we don't believe the characters' pity after his demise. As for Paris, I kept thinking of "Prince Valium" from Spaceballs. Only Celia Johnson manages to do the character of the Nurse some justice.

At 168 minutes, this production is unable to make us empathize with the characters, because the characters don't empathize with each other and never seen to believe their own roles. The best screen version is still Franco Zeffirelli's. But, to be fair, this BBC one isn't nearly as bad as abominations like George Cukor's flamboyant geriatric version, or the crime against Humanity that is Baz Luhrmann's feature-length MTV video. 4/10.