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

Answer: That's the question you have to ask yourself when you watch this movie "What was the point?" This movie was nothing but an hour and a half of confusion with completely unlikable people (not going to use the word actors) and a script that you could tell didn't exist.

One of the things that made me laugh the most about this movie was how it said "Victorian story written by" which means that there was actually a script to that part of the story. The entire victorian section had no dialogue, and was just comprised of shots of a guy staring at a girl and vice versa. Making that part of the movie as scripted as a camera left on at a train station.

OK, time for the story. It starts out with a guy sitting in a chair never once getting out of it. Oh blocking, who needs you? These newspeople come to his house and practically beg him to tell this story about these dead girls. So he starts off the story in Victorian times. and here's how the scene goes (Guy and girl are in a field. pretty music starts to play) (guy stares at girl) (girl stares at guy) (guy stares at girl) cut back to movie. That's pretty much all that happens for about half the movie.

The rest of the film is incredibly awkward dialogue about a bunch of models wanting to buy an apartment. So this real estate agent shows them one and when i say the dialogue is awkward i mean, if it were a dancer it would trip during the MACARENA. None of the characters in this movie are likable. The models are incredibly irritating, the victorian people don't talk, and the guy telling the story has the personality of a sack of onions. So eventually all the girls get killed off. and by killed off, i mean drug offscreen. ooh. you showed ONE death? and by death i mean holding her face till they put the blood makeup on? awesome.

HOW this guy even knows this story baffles me. He says it's because he saw it. but how? there was no guy in that apartment! the door was locked shut with no way out, the windows were attached to a fire escape that was too rotten to work, how the HELL did he see all that? Oh plot holes. we DO love you. So the movie finishes up with the newswoman saying "i think you made it up. you're wasting our time" despite the fact that she begged him for the interview in the first place. Whatever. This movie was stupid, pointless, and made no sense with a lot of plot holes. I could go on and on about this movie, but i don't see the need. i'd much rather spend my time doing something uselful. Like widdle something. "Hell's Threshold" more belongs in purgatory with 2 dumb models. out of 10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.

If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").

Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.

But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.

Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.

Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of cliches and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.