Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: How many of us wish that we could throw away social and cultural obligations and be free? Most of us, I suspect. Shall we dance? is not a movie about dancing. It is about learning about ourselves, recognising what we are looking for in life and having the courage to go in search of it. Mr Sugiyama is a middle-aged member of a Japanese society where ballroom dancing is viewed as unsuitable behaviour.

One day Mr Sugiyama sees a beautiful girl leaning out of the window of a dancing acadamy. he is fascinated by her and eventually signs up for dancing lessons. He is ashamed of his dancing and afraid of ridicule. He hides the fact that he is attending dancing classes from his colleagues and family.

There is a hilarious scene in the mensroom at the office when Sugiyama and Watanabe, a workmate who also dances, are interrupted practising some dance steps. There are many other funny and warm-hearted scenes.

The ending is not a fairytale, but it leaves the viewer feeling good.

This movie helped me to understand the Japanese people a little better. It is a warm and very worthwhile film to see.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Miriam Hopkins is "The Lady with Red Hair" in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.

Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.

Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.

The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.

Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: the Germans all stand out in the open and get mowed down with a machine gun. the Good guys never die, unless its for dramatic purposes. the "plot" has so many holes its laughable. (Where did the German soldiers go once they rolled the fuel tank towards the train? Erik Estrada? Please!) And the whole idea, hijacking a train? How moronic is that! The Germans KNOW where you are going to go, its not like you can leave the track and drive away! What a waste. I would rather bonk myself on the head with a ball peen hammer 10 times then have to sit through that again. I mean, seriously, it FELT like it was made in the 60s, but it was produced in 88!! 1988!! the A-Team is more believable than this horrid excuse for a movie. Only watch it if you need a good laugh. This movie is to Tele Sevalas what Green Beret was to John Wayne.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.

If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).

So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).

2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.

3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).

Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of "tension and release" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.

4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.

In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben