Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.

This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.

One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.

What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.

The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.

The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.

I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I thought that this film was very well made, Heath Leger was very convincing and his Irish accent was flawless. Orlando Bloom and Naomi Watts were also really good and believable. How true it is to what really happened I have no idea, but it did portray why people sometimes become what they do. Maybe those in authority have always been corrupt and I did find it interesting that over 30,000 signed a petition for Ned Kelly NOT to be hanged, so maybe there was more truth in this film than at first thought? In many ways it reminded me of Cold Mountain which was another good historical film. All in all I would highly recommend this film and I am somewhat baffled why it didn't do better in the cinemas.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?

I will try anyway.

The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified.

The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth.

During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life "with a grin on my face." Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.

And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, "God forgive me for the time I've wasted."

Bravi tutti!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.

With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.

Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.

The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice.

Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!