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

Answer: This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.

In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to.


Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...


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

A: This film is a spicy little piece of film-making from Sam Fuller which gives Richard Widmark the chance to show of some of his best, most edgy acting in the role of Skip McCoy, a small-time thief who stumbles onto a military secret while picking beautiful Candy's (Jean Peters) pocket on a crowded bus. It turns out Candy was doing a favor for her (ex?)boyfriend, who's working for the "commies".

Superficially, there's a mystery here regarding Candy's motives and Skip spends much of the film determining her motives. Actually he seems to just initially assume that she's a "commie", going so far as to pour beer in her face in a callous gesture. But the real question is  what's going on with Skip? What are his motives, and why does Candy like him so much? Why do we (the audience) want to like him so much? Basically what the film-makers have done here is create a very striking "male fatale" in Widmark's character and his performance. Just as the male audience tends to ponder through the length of a film like "The Big Sleep" or "The Glass Key" along with the main characters whether the female character is trustworthy or just a pretty face, the film-makers have here created a similar quandary for female viewers. Widmark is handsome, and there's also a charm in his boyish insouciance  but the first two times he meets our leading lady, he robs her and then punches her in the face. Eventually the question becomes  would Skip sink so low as to sell out his country for a buck (his comments to the police, like "you're waving a flag at ME?" make us suspect he would) or is he simply out for revenge for the murder of his friend Moe (Thelma Ritter)? I'm not sure that the film gives us a conclusive answer either way.

Thelma Ritter's character work deserves special mention  she has created a truly indelible character here. Fuller isn't afraid to give her plenty of "business"  in the form of physical objects that she uses to draw the audience into her world, particularly her used ties. Another example of Fuller's "business" would be the scene with Victor Perry (an actor I've seen elsewhere used to less effect) using the chopsticks to intimidate Candy.

The emphasis on Moe's relationship with Skip provides one of cinema's most revealing "honor among thieves" themes. In fact Skip has the same kind of ease and the same kind of casual relationship with the police, with the notable exception of Capt. Tiger (Murvyn Vye) who has a grudge against him. I loved the scene where he invited the cops in by name and offered them a beer when they came to pick him up at his shack. Those are the kind of details that make this film feel real  whether or not it really is "realistic" or whether that would matter are entirely separate questions.

All told, I would say this is an essential crime film which displays a lot of the best and most durable attributes of the "film noir" school of film-making. A predictable plot is off-set by a host of colorful characters (uniformly well-performed), cheap sets are disguised by the film's unrelenting pace, and the final product feels a lot more substantial than it probably is. This is the best film I've seen so far by Sam Fuller and helps me to see better why he's regarded as a master director  here he accomplished some things that I think he tried but ultimately failed to do in other films like "The Crimson Kimono" and "Shock Corridor" as far as very emphatic acting styles and really gripping suspense. This is one of my favorite performances from Widmark that I've seen so far  and Widmark was a talent that I'm tempted to say (based on the few extraordinary films I've seen with him) was comparable to that of Alan Ladd or Humphrey Bogart, although arguably he didn't make as many classic films.


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

Answer:
I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."

It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience. 

The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.

Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech." 

The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.