Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Before I start, I should point out that I know the editor of this film. We've never met, but we belong to the same fanzine(those things which came before message boards), and we have talked on the phone, so I do have a bias here. Anyway...

Somehow, it's ironic how while the "Rat Pack" culture of the late 50's and early to mid-60's made a comeback in the mid-90's, this movie, from the son of one of the original Rat Pack, and which was made in a similar fashion, was a flop. Not only that, it was a critical flop; I believe Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was the only one who did not savage this(he gave it a mixed review, as I recall). And while I don't think this is the greatest film in the world, and I am not a fan of the Rat Pack, or "cocktail," culture, I do think this is worth seeing.

For one thing, this looks stylish, and moves right along. For another, the core performances are all good. Richard Dreyfus is surprisingly restrained here as the head gangster coming back from a sanitarium, and has a droll edge to him. Jeff Goldblum goes back to the quietly ironic performances he gave in his pre-blockbuster days, like THE BIG CHILL. And while Ellen Barkin is only required to vamp in this movie, she does it entertainingly. Admittedly, it's not a great film; the dialogue is mostly made up of puns, and a lot of them don't work(like the whole "Zen of Ben" speech). And Gabriel Byrne and Kyle MacLachlan are awful here. Still, I was entertained, and if you like gangster films, you might be too.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a positive review in the New York Times. In addition, I'm also Shanghainese so there was more than just a passing interest in the subject matter. However, after watching it, I was extremely disappointed.

The movie's pace was excruciatingly slow and monotonous. The director lingered on certain scenes for much too long. There was no passion or chemistry between the lovers. There was barely any dialogue. Dialogue was sorely needed to compensate for the lack of acting. At the end of the movie, you didn't feel any compassion for the characters. This movie was lacking in everything. The script was weak, the acting was poor, and the editing was non-existent. The director tried to emulate certain noir film styles but failed miserably. A good movie is one in which captures your attention, maintains it and is successful in concluding without you feeling time has passed by. This movie felt as though it would never end. Don't waste your money on this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Anna (Charlotte Burke), who is just on the verge of puberty, begins to have strange dreams which start affecting her in real life--especially involving a boy named Mark (Elliott Spiers) who she meets in her dreams.

Very unusual fantasy with some truly terrifying moments. Despite the fact that this is about a teenage girl and has a PG-13 rating, this is NOT for children. Also, if you hate fantasies stay far away. But if you're game for something different this fits the bill.

Well directed by Bernard Rose with a just beautiful music score and a few nice, scary jolts. The only thing that prevents this from being a really great movie is Burke--she's not a very good actress (it's no surprise that this has been her only film) and it hurts the movie. However, everybody else is just great.

Spiers is very good as Mark; Glenne Headley (faking a British accent very well) is also very good as Anna's mother and Ben Cross is both frightening and sympathetic as Anna's father.

A sleeper hit when released in 1988, it's since faded away. That's too bad--it's really very good.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliche but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.

Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!

I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.