Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst "film" I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.

Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: In 1967 I visited the Lake Elsinore glider-port and flew a yellow Pratt Read sailplane. Returning to Germany the above serious ran on TV and one segment was about the high altitude sailplane flights in California in the early 50ies. (The real life pilot was Bill Ivans, I don't know who played him in the series) It turned out that the sailplane in the film was the same (same N-number) as the one I had flown at Lake Elsinore. Ever since I saw that segment I have been searching for it and have been wondering if it is somewhere available. (other segments in that serious were about the Baker Ejection Seat; an instrument to find avalanche victims etc.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.

One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I don't know how this movie received so many positive reviews on this site! I'm a big vonnegut fan and am very familiar with the story this Showtime original film bastardized beyond belief, but even if I wasn't, the poor acting, VERY poor casting (Sean Astin as the brilliant, athletic, and all around individual, Harrison?? The guy's completely generic!) and sub-standard writing rendered this tripe barely watchable. Someone pointed out how cute that Maculay Culkin line was. If you read that and thought that was pure comic brilliance (sadly, it probably was the most INTENTIONALLY funny part of the movie), maybe you'll like this movie. But if you're a Vonnegut fan or not completely insane, don't see it. Please.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I knew I was going to see this when I saw the first preview. Dennis Quaid was one reason, but the theme of holding on to your dreams speaks to me. People talk about this as a movie for kids, but I think it's a movie for baby boomers who are coming to terms with aging, infirm parents, our own mortality, our kids growing up and leaving us, and all the other things we never thought would happen to us.

The movie doesn't fall into the trap of tragedy; it's about what living your dreams means when you have a real life.

Quaid is too small for a pitcher but he makes it look good, and Rachel Griffiths makes a small part as the wife into a thoughtful, layered performance. The camera-work is slow and sweet. When they put this movie together, they left out anything that wasn't necessary. Very nice.