Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: What a class bit of British cinema! It's about time. And a side splitting comedy to boot!

Anyone searching to relive a bit of freedom from their misspent youth this road movie will prove the ticket.

It's a mix between "Withnail and I" and "Easy Rider". The movie runs at a solid pace and doesn't let you drift off for too long... At times there are reflective moments, but I think they are well justified and add to the characters the actors are portraying. I was a little concerned with Phil Daniels character at the start but thankfully was won over half way through in what was one of the funniest scenes of the entire movie! Generally I found myself belly laughing through the film most likely annoying some people around me. Oh well.

I would thoroughly recommend it. This will become a cult British comedy. Well worth a visit.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.

Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.

Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)

It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Imagine that I was about to miss this great cultural event on Swedish TV last night, and it was only because my girlfriend insisted on keeping the TV on (to make it easier for her to fall asleep!) that I came across it (yes I had seen an advert for it previously but of course forgotten about it and looked forward to an 'early night'...).

Anyway - this must surely be a rather unusual idea - to base a film documentary on an interview made with sound only more than 30 years ago. But with animated and other documentary film material it adds up to a really good and insightful portrait of one of the 20th centuries' most appreciated literary artists - Georges Remy a.k.a Herge.

I for sure will read my Tintin albums with a different eye after having seen this film, which makes it easier to connect the variations in style as well as content with the different periods in Herge's life (and I can tell you that I will a.s.a.p get the few that I don't have). Of course my perception of the albums has changed over the more than 25 years that I have already been reading them, as has my view about what albums are my favourites, but this adds (at least) one more dimension to them.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Apart from the usual stereotypes of the thirties, Eugene Pallette as the gruff police detective, Jack La Rue as the "swarthy" Italian and of course, James Lee as "The Chinese Cook", this film is THE great mystery of a murder in a locked room. For an early 1930's film, this step by step "peeling of the veneer of the mystery" is similar to the COLUMBO series, except in this film, you don't have the advantage of knowing who the killer was in advance.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.