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

Answer: We all know what's like when we have a bad day at the office, right? Well, this Neil Simon comedy looks at what it's like when you have the worst of all days just trying to get to the office. Sometimes, it's just not worth going, know what I mean? And, sometimes, it's just not worth doing something when it's already been done before, in 1970, with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis... and much better also.

It's not that Steve Martin is a lousy comedian or wrong for the role as the harried and stressed advertising exec; quite to the contrary, on both counts. And, it's not that Goldie Hawn is equally inept either; her work has been consistently good, if not great, ever since I first saw her in TV's Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In of the 1960s.

The problem with this movie is that it's not about the hapless couple at all: it's really about New York and why everybody should come to New York to live and love their lives away in married bliss sort of in the greatest city in the world. That's if you're a New Yorker...

Look, the 1970 movie is still an excellent comedy that realistically explored all the things that can go wrong when you take a trip somewhere, and included most of the situations and sight gags that you can imagine about what can happen to you in a strange environment. This 1999 version unfortunately goes off into gratuitous tangents specifically for an audience these days that expects or wants to see excess. For example, not content with the star appeal of the main players, there is a cameo (relatively long also) from Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, as we all know. What Giuliani bucking for President even then? Worse a walking talking advertisement for the kinder face of New York.

And then we have John Cleese, reprising his role as Basil Fawlty but this time, as a prancing cross-dresser also once again browbeating hotel staff, sycophantically sucking up to rich customers and generally making himself look like the idiot he is, in this role. And, in the process, doing great damage to the memory of Fawlty Towers, arguably the best British comedy series, bar none...

Why was this 1999 movie made? In the 1970s, New York was a dying city, in many ways. It was almost literally bankrupt. So, when made in 1970, that was the city you saw: grim, dark, moody, unsettling and not the place that the harassed couple finally chose for their new life together in the Big Smoke (as it was then, polluted and all). By 1999, things had gotten better: glitz was back, New York was thriving, it was the Big Apple, ready for you to bite into, if you had the moxie...

So, naturally, the couple in this second coming find that moxie within themselves and finally join the fabulous fray to continue the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, this movie is truly comic but not for reasons that the producers perhaps envisaged. As much as I like Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in comedy, this movie is a travesty of the much better one made with the great Jack Lemmon. If you've seen the latter, then definitely don't bother with this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.

There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: WOW!

I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!

Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!

If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.

Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.

And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.

A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it.