Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!

The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.

The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that Rene Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.

It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!

Rene Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.

The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.

The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.

One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!

8/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It is ironic that during the '50s, when Douglas Sirk was at his most successful in terms of audience appeal, he was virtually ignored by the critics He is now seen, however, as a director of formidable intellect who achieved his best work in melodrama

"Written on the Wind" is about the downfall of a Texan oil dynasty surrounded by worthless reputation, alcoholism, and nymphomania It is about the twisted, fatal connections between sex, power, and money...

Stack draws a compelling portrait of a tormented drunken destroyed by frustration, arrogance, jealousy, insanity, and some deep insecurities

Dorothy Malone succeeds as an attractive woman with an excessive sexual appetites, degrading herself for Hudson and to other fellows in town Her best line: "I'm filthy." In one frantic scene, we see her shaking, quivering and sweating to a provocative mambo In another weeping alone over a model oil-derrick at her father's desksymbol of excessive wealth and masculine tyranny

The frenetic atmosphere is both made palatable and intensified by Sirk's magnificent use of colors, lights, and careful use of mirrors
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie is a rather odd mix of musical, romance, drama and crime with a sniff of film-noir to it. It's basically one messy heap of different genres, of which none really works out like it was supposed to.

This movie is an attempt by Mickey Rooney to be taken more serious as an actor. He's a former child-star who always used to star in in happy comical- and musical productions at the start of his career. In this movie he picks a different approach (although the musical aspects are still present in the movie). But his role is actually quite laughable within the movie. I mean Mickey Rooney as a tough player? He's an extremely small boyish looking man. He actually was in his 30's already at the time of this movie but he seriously looks more like a 16 year old. Hearing him say babe to women and hearing talking tough to gangsters who are about 3 times bigger than he is just doesn't look and feel right. He simply isn't convincing in his role.

Because the movie mixes so many different genres, the story also really feels as a messy one. Somewhere in it there is a crime plot and somewhere in it is a romantic plot-line and one about living your dream but none of it works out really due to the messy approach and handling of it all. It just isn't an interesting or compelling movie to watch. Laszlo Kardos is also a director who has done only 10 movies in his lifetime, despite the fact that his career span from 1935 till 1957. He must have been a struggling director who had a hard time getting work into the industry and instead once in a while was given a lesser script to work with. His movies are all unknown ones and normally also not of too high quality.

Let's also not forget that this is a '50's movie but yet it more feels like a '40's one or perhaps even as one from the '30's. This is of course mostly due to the fact that this movie got shot in black & white. Generally speaking black & white movies from the '50's often have a cheap looking feeling over it and this movie forms no exception.

It's a rather strange sight seeing Mickey Rooney and Louis Armstrong and his band as themselves performing together in a sequence. It wasn't the only movie Armstrong appeared in though and he would often pop up in these type of movies, often simply as himself. I guess jazz lovers can still somewhat enjoy watching this movie due to its music, since there is quite an amount of it present in this movie. The movie actually received an Oscar nomination for best original song.

An awkward little movie and outing from Mickey Rooney.

4/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that "Stripes" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and "Stripes" is a bad movie.

Now, "Stripes" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.

Why is it bad? Mostly because "Stripes" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as "Anchorman" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.

"Stripes" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.

Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in "Stripes" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in "Stripes" funny either.

"Stripes" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's "buddy" comedy I would recommend "Stir Crazy." Like "Stripes" the humor in "Stir Crazy" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike "Stripes" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable.