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

Answer: Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:

- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.

- Unconvincing acting.

- Storyline never really caught fire.

The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.

Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I don't buy kung fu movies for a plot. I buy them for fight scenes. A bad plot can be forgiven for excellent fight scenes, but not the other way around.

The story was decent, but moved too slowly for my tastes. There were about 3 or 4 mediocre fight scenes throughout, lasting only a couple of minutes apiece. The last fight was a bit longer, but by that point i was so bored i didn't even pay attention to it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...

This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..

I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-

This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.

Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.

And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.

What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.

I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.

1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs.

Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Remember the name Kevin Lime - and please, please never let

him direct again. Timing, pacing, editing: all hopelessly wrong.

Three or four decent professionals (next time, guys, walk off the

set) can do nothing to save this film from amateurs like Alice

Evans, and the kind of production standards you'd expect from

teen-produced children's shows on british TV.

Greatest mystery: the music. A score so inept, inappropriate and

ill-matched to the tone of the film that one seriously wonders if it is

a case of sabotage. Add an acoustic that booms apparently

unengineered from a single mike, and a director who only

intermittently remembers to add auditory action offscreen, and we

have what must be on of the greatest ratio of money to result of

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

Answer:
Late, great Grade Z drive-in exploitation filmmaker par excellence Al Adamson really outdoes himself with this gloriously ghastly sci-fi soft-core musical comedy atrocity which plumbs deliciously dismal and dopey depths in sheer celluloid silliness and jaw-dropping stupidity. In the grim totalitarian future of 2047 sex has been deemed an illegal act by the Big Brother-like impotent bumbling idiot the Controller (an amusingly goofy Erwin Fuller). However, sweet'n'sexy Cinderella (radiant blonde cutie pie Catherine Erhardt) remains determined to change things for the better. With the help of her effeminate Fairy Godfather (a flamboyantly campy Jay B. Larson), Cinderella attends a grand gala ball with the specific plan of seducing handsome stud Tom Prince (the dorky Vaughn Armstrong) and teaching everyone that making love is a positive, pleasurable and wholly acceptable activity.

Adamson directs this ridiculous yarn with his customary all-thumbs incompetence, staging the incredibly awful'n'inept song and dance sequences with a totally sidesplitting lack of skill and flair. The uproariously abysmal "We All Need Love" number with people in absurd animal costumes awkwardly prancing about the forest is a hilariously horrendous marvel; ditto the equally abominable "Mechnical Man" routine featuring a bunch of clumsily cavorting robots. Louis Horvarth's crude, static cinematography, the tacky plastic miniatures, Sparky Sugerman's groovy throbbing disco score, the copious gratuitous nudity (ravishing brunette hottie Sherri Coyle warrants special praise in this particular department), the brain-numbingly puerile attempts at leering lowbrow humor (Roscoe the Robot law enforcer is especially irritating), and the uniformly terrible performances (Renee Harmon's outrageously hammy portrayal of Cinderella's wicked overbearing stepmother cops the big booby prize here) further enhance the strikingly abundant cheesiness to be savored in this delectably dreadful doozy.