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

Answer: A good idea, badly implemented. While that could summarize 99% of the SciFi channel's movies, it really applies here. I love movies where a good back story is slowly revealed, and I like action movies, and I like all of the main actors, so this could have been great. However, despite some good acting, this movie fails due to Bill Platt's bad writing and directing.

Another review made the good point of needing to know where you're going so you can get there. This movie doesn't. It's put together in such a haphazard way that you know the words "second draft" are not in Bill Platt's vocabulary. There is one scene that is entirely unnecessary and could be removed without anyone noticing. This scene even begins and ends with them driving a car, so you could cut from one car scene to the other and never have missed the pointless scene in the middle.

This movie also had a strange habit of under explaining some details while over explaining others, some to the point where you can guess the entire "plot" up front. It also had a habit of aborting a fight early, probably just because they couldn't afford it. There are also a few laughably bad scenes where the "plot" is revealed on a computer and the final battle involving conveniently placed "toxic adhesive" (seriously, what *is* that?).

If you are a fan of Shiri Appleby, watch this movie because she's OK. She does manage to break out of her "Roswell" persona a few times and make for a good tough chick (but not always). John De Lancie plays the same character he plays in everything he's ever done since playing Q back in ST:TNG, so that's nothing new.

In all, I gave this movie a 4/10 rating.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: i watched this series when it first came out in the 70s.i was 14 years old and i watched it at my best friends house as my dad didn't want to watch it.it became a weekly ritual every Sunday, and as anyone will tell you for two fourteen year olds to watch a documentary in almost reverential silence must mean that this was something special.

the broad sweep of the events of world war 2 makes for a difficult subject to document.so the makers broke it down into what they considered to be the most significant key happenings and devoted one episode to each.some episodes covered long periods such as 'wolf pack' which covered nearly all six years of the battle of the Atlantic.while the battle of Stalingrad had one episode to itself.

this documentary could not be made today quite simply because most of those interviewed are dead.the list of significant players appearing gives an amazing insight into the thinking at the time.Anthony eden the foreign secretary,Carl donnitz,head of the u-boats,Albert speer,pet architect confident and later armament minister for Hitler.in one of the later episodes we see traudl junge, Hitler's secretary,who was with him in the bunker and it was to her that he dictated his last will and testament-she left the bunker after Hitler's suicide and escaped through the Russian lines.these and many others play a major role in the realism of the events portrayed.

if i have any criticism of the series it is that the code-breakers of bletchly park are not included but the revelations of their part in the war only emerged after the series had been made so i cannot blame the programme makers.

the opening titles and music are magnificent,and Lawrence Olivier's narration lends a natural gravity to the script.

the best documentary series ever made? without doubt.unmissable
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: There aren't enough gay-themed movies and there aren't enough 'coming out' movies. Every one is a welcome addition to the genre. Although the production values are high(the movie 'looks' good, Matthias Freihof (Philipp) looks REAL good in a pair of jeans) this is a bad one. It is a period piece: gay life under an oppressive regime(East Berlin, 1989) a life that seems 40 years behind the west. In a way we're seeing our own history; what it might have been like for gays in the 40's and 50's here(it often reminded me of 'Last Exit to Brooklyn :the book not the film).But it is unremittingly depressing and SLOW in a contrived way that evoked an old SCTV send up of Ingmar Bergman. It is so sloppily edited I wonder if the director just didn't hack at random. Yes, it is a miracle that this was filmed and released before The Wall came down and yes, life behind the 'Curtain' was hard for gay people. A good director could have shown all that without stupefying the audience. A good director would have had me mark this one as one of the great coming-out movies and not one of the misses.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This film is about the life of Queen Victoria during her youth and her first few years as the monarch of Great Britain.

"The Young Victoria" has amazing production. Every scene is designed and decorated to immaculate detail. The extravagant costumes, lavish locations and beautifully landscaped gardens all make "The Young Victoria" very impressive. I was the most amazed by the thoughtful cinematography. How every person is placed in relation to the background or foreground is well thought out, every scene is well composed. The scene that strikes me the most was when Victoria talks to Melbourne. Melbourne was positioned in the middle of the door frame from Victoria's angle, while from Melbourne's angle Victoria was situated between the space where Melbourne held his arm on his hips.

Story wise, it is far too compressed to be followed and understood by a person without historical knowledge of Queen Victoria. Many events are rushed through or not even explained. I expected a grand scene of the coronation, and disappointingly it only lasted for a few seconds.

Overall, "The Young Victoria" is a good film, and it would have been even better if it was longer, so that events could be properly explained without rush.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Not one of your harder-hitting stories, and that's a real strength of this film. There are at least two relationships in which less confident writers would have added some all-too predictable romantic tension. They not only spare the audience this, but throw in some surprises at the same time. There are a few Disney-ish moments, particularly near the end, but they are manageable. Overall, it was worth the rental and it was good, relaxed fun.

BTW, if you get the DVD, watch the segment where the director teaches you how to make aloo gobi. We followed her directions and it was BRILLIANT! Next time we will make it the day before we plan to eat it, because this is one dish that definitely gets better with a full night in the fridge to let the spices out!