Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I had never seen Richard Thomas play a bad guy. I wasn't sure I would like him this way. And I wasn't sure he could pull it off. But this astounded me. He sent shivers up my spine and caused me to take a closer look at street people. The movie is engrossing and fast paced. Bruce Davison is convincing but all he can really play is a nice guy. The real talent here is Thomas. The ending was a little clumsy but perhaps that's the way real people would fight... If you are a Thomas fan you MUST see him here at his best being bad!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, I'd probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when you're nine you just don't care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays I'm kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new year's eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. It's like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one can't see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I don't mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the cast's balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I don't mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It just seems bizarre that someone read this script, and thought, "This is funny! I mean, it's so hilarious it just has to be made!" Who was this person? Is he or she the person really responsible for this? Are they the one's who owe me for my time, more so than the director/writer?

This film stinks in most every way possible. There's no one shred of good dialogue, and not one likable character. And the story...

I prefer the 2nd worst movie ever, Hulk Hogan's "No Hold's Barred" to this by quite a considerable degree. It seems almost Shakespearen in comparison.

The ending is padded out with several minutes of outtakes, and it's still under 80 minutes. The outtakes include cast members laughing at the 'hilarious' mistakes they've made, and things that went wrong on the set of this 'comedy.' Glad to see someone laughing in someway, with some connection to this 'film.'

Nothing in this film is funny. Nothing. It just goes on, and on. It's truly that lame. I love films that are so bad they're good. This is so bad it's...something, but I don't know what, and hopefully will never find out.

Amanda Peet doesn't suck outright, and is in fact the only half good thing about this wannabe film. But, that really means little.

Avoid at all costs.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Spoilers - in as far as I describe characters and their relation to the plot.

This is a quality film. The subject matter is at once grim and gripping. The dogged determination of Stephen Rea's character, Burakov, is simply captivating. With any due apologies to him, his hangdog, continually put-upon expression serves the character well. He is, as we in England would say of the Inspector Taggart TV series character, bound to be grim because he sees three murders a week. Well, that's not strictly accurate as Chikatila operated over a number of years...

You get a real sense of the blankwall resistance of the USSR bureaucracy, brilliantly portrayed by Joss Ackland (who often seems made for this sort of role).

A key character (and I write this as the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is being shown on BBC1) is the Donald Sutherland character "Mikhail Fetisov". His quiet support of Burakov is steadfast. And it endures through Perestroika, and drives the involvement of the FBI for profiling. Brilliant.

This is a must-see, as far as I am concerned.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Journey of Hope" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
George Cukor directs this high quality story of suspense in the theatrical world with his usual sensitive but firm touch. Ronald Colman's performance, which earned him an Oscar, still stands up despite a few overwrought moments it's hard to forget his haunted countenance as he struts aimlessly around social functions and tries to find meaning in his life. There are a number of interesting subtexts and Cukor does an excellent job of making them clear without forcing anything too much. The script by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon is brilliant, mixing the rarified theater world with the seedy world of the streets and comprehensively utilizing elements from Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a reference to both the film's main theme of jealousy and Colman's character's obsession with identity.

Several interesting things about this movie superficially it could be dismissed as too flippant a treatment of the everyday problems of actors. In other words if the art of acting required such complete sublimation of individuality we would soon have a rash of psycho method actors stalking the streets. But I don't really think this story's primary concern is acting or the job/art of acting per se. I think Anthony's struggles represents a broader existential question, a deeply buried uncertainty about identity. There's a key, I feel, in his relationship with his ex-wife Britta (Signe Hasso). He says that he never would have or could have become a good actor without her inspiration. And at another point he explicitly states that his extreme identification with his roles began when he married her. I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems important to me, especially because it's his obsession with her and jealousy of her that ultimately pushes him over the top. Perhaps the implication is that Anthony put himself in danger in the first place by entering into a serious relationship. Marriage implies a "union of the soul" in the traditional conception. It's unusual that the male and female protagonists are divorced at the beginning of the film. It's not completely unprecedented (Hawks' comedy "His Girl Friday" springs to mind, among others), but it is unusual and probably significant, especially in light of the fact that they do not end up resolving their romantic separation. In a way, the film could be implying that jealousy is another form of self-love.