Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Written and directed by Steve Gordon. Running time: 97 minutes. Classified PG.

It was the quintessential comedy of the decade. It won Sir John Gielgud the Academy Award. It was even featured in VH1's "I Love the 80's." And it looks just as good today as it did upon it's initial release. Arthur is the acclaimed comedy classic about a drunken millionaire (played with enthusiasm and wit by Dudley Moore in an Oscar-nominated performance) who must choose between the woman he loves and the life he's grown accustomed to. While the basic plot is one big cliche, there's nothing trite about this congenial combination of clever dialogue and hilarious farce. Arthur Bach is essentially nothing more than a pretentious jerk, but you can't help but like him. Especially when he delivers lines such as, "Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!" He's also a delineation from the archetypical movie hero: unlike most wealthy characters we see on the silver screen, he's not ashamed of being filthy rich. In one scene, a man asks him, "What does it feel like to have all that money?," to which he responds, "It feels great." Moore lends such charisma and charm to a character that would otherwise be loathed by his audience. And Gielgud is simply perfect as the arrogant servant, addressing his master with extreme condescension in spite of the fact that his salary depends on him. Arthur is one of those movies that doesn't try to be brilliant or particularly exceptional: it just comes naturally. The screenplay -- which also earned a nod from the Academy -- is saturated with authentic laugh-out-loud dialogue. This is the kind of movie that, when together with a bunch of poker buddies, you quote endlessly to one another. It also looks at its characters with sincere empathy. There have been a number of comedies that attempt to dip into drama by including the death or illness of a principal star (including both Grumpy Old Men's), but few can carry it off because we just don't care. When this movie makes the dubious decision to knock off the butler, it actually works, because we genuinely like these people. Why should you see Arthur? The answer is simple: because it's an all-around, non-guilty pleasure. At a period in which films are becoming more and more serious, Arthur reminds us what it feels like to go to the movies and just have a good time.

**** - Classic
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Ever wonder where the ideas for romance novels and other paper back released come from? According to 'Jake Speed' they are based on real people, living out the adventures they write about and publish. This movie is quality family entertainment, moderate amounts of violence, and skimpy clothes at the worst. The language is is also not a problem, and the jokes are funny at all levels. This is a 'Austin Powers' look at 'Indian Jones', without the over-the-top antics of Michael Myers. I highly recommend this film for kids in the 10 to 15 range.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is an intimate movie of a sincere girl in the real world out of Hollywood's cheap fantasy is a very good piece of its class, and Ashley Judd fills the role impeccably. It may appear slow for thrill seekers though. Cool movie for a calm night.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.

I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.

This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.

I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.

Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Although the film is the adaptation of the French play (forgot the name - sorry), it is a wonderful portrayal of the cheerful side of Georgian character. This film will make you to burst into laughter and will fill your heart with warm sadness. It will display the overwhelming love of life along with human eccentricities.