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

Answer: Jacknife is a masterpiece of the 80's. It's a movie that breaths through amazing acting and a very interesting directing touch. In Jacknife both lovers of European and American cinema can find things to relate on. The screenplay is very compelling and full of beautiful characters. Ed Harris is giving one of the greatest performances up to date. He portrays his alcoholic hero superbly making us feel his broken heart in each line, in each move. Robert De Niro makes us once again think of him as one of the greatest actors of all time in one of the simplest but also most realistic performances in his career. Jacknife is never getting boring as it shows its heroes clear of any typical Hollywood's typical character elements. After the war none is a hero. Everybody is a loser, and this movie is about that simple truth. None can mend up his pieces after a war, just like the heroes of this movie. Jacknife is about the diseases of the soul that war creates. Simply magnificent movie.


Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: 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.


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

A: Prom Night is shot with the artistic eye someone gives while finely crafting a Lifetime original film. You know the one. This October, Lifetime takes a break from the courageous tale of a woman surviving (insert disease name here) to tell the somewhat creepy tale of a woman pursued by a stalker ex-boyfriend. It's dramatic  it's sappy  it's immensely dull. It does nothing to further a genre, tell an original story, or strive for ANY sort of newness. Prom Night shares this plight. Watching the killer poke holes in his victims, we sit silently as they slump to the floor with not a drop of blood spilled. It occurred to me that this was the cleanest killer in movie history.

Our director is working with a fairly good-looking killer so he is forced to pour on the camera angles to make him appear creepier. Think about Matthew McConaughey coming at you with a knife. You'd probably go  "OH! Good lookin guy is going to kill me? Naaaa." Not scary even for a second, so the director throws Schaech into shadows and over the shoulder in the mirror. This mirror shot is repeated to the point of sickness as it practically becomes a fetish of the creator. You'll get 15 jump scares in this film, 2 of which made my date jump (I might mention she is afraid of EVERYTHING). I'd also mention she decided to take a nap halfway through the film and at one point threatened to leave me.

As if this film were not disjointed enough, it appears to be cut to shreds. I'm not saying it looks like key points were left on the cutting room floor as the crew scrambled to salvage some semblance of a horror film; I'm saying as the film moves from scene to scene, you often get a jarring jump. This is the kind of thing you'd expect when a film catches fire and a projectionist is forced to splice ends together, cross his fingers, and hope for the best. The editor should be shot.

With a plot you can pack into two sentences, one stray spray of blood, an emo killer, and the tension of a very special episode of "Silver Spoons", we're left with no reason to support horror this weekend  at least on the big screen. In fact, this is the sort of film that should be punished. Is it really that hard to make a scary movie? Was this crew even aware they were making a horror film??!! A complete waste of my time and yours. I bit the bullet to get you this review. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. DON'T GO INTO THE MOVIE!!!


Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Academy Award winner Robert Redford (Best Director. Ordinary People 1980) captures the majesty of the Montana wilderness and the strength of the American family in this acclaimed adaptation of Norman Macleans classic memoir.

Craig Sheffer stars as the young Norman, and Brad Pitt stars as his brother Paul, an irresistible daredevil driven to challenge the world.

Growing up, both boys rebel against their stern Minister father (Tom Skerritt).

While Norman channels his rebellion into writing, Paul descends a slippery path to self-destruction.

Also starring Emily LLoyd as wild-hearted Jessie Burns.

The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematopghaphy in 1993.


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

Answer: I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get "best animated short film" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic "Jason Steele Marathon." I do have a lot of those.

-R


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

Answer:
Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.

Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.

Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.

Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.

My rating: 1/5