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

Answer: Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Oscar Wilde's comedy of manners, perhaps the wittiest play ever written, is all but wrecked at the hands of a second-rate cast. Sanders is, as one would expect, casually, indolently brilliant in the role of Lord Darlington, but the rest of the cast makes the entire procedure a waste of time. Jean Crain attempts a stage accent in alternate sentences and the other members of the cast seem to believe this is a melodrama and not a comedy; indeed, the entire production has bookends that reduce it to tragedy -- doubtless the Hays office insisted. Preminger's direction seems to lie mostly in making sure that there are plenty of servants about and even the music seems banal. Stick with the visually perfect silent farce as directed by Lubitsch or even the 2004 screen version with Helen Hunt as Mrs. Erlynne; or try reading the play for the pleasure of the words. But skip this version.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This isn't among Jimmy Stewart's best films--I'm quick to admit that. However, while some view his film as pure propaganda, I'm wondering what's so wrong with that? Yes, sure, like the TV show THE FBI, this is an obvious case of the Bureau doing some PR work to try to drum up support. But, as entertainment goes, it does a good job. Plus, surprisingly enough for the time it was made, the film focuses more on crime than espionage and "Commies". Instead, it's a fictionalization of one of the earliest agents and the career he chose. Now considering the agent is played by Jimmy Stewart, then it's pretty certain the acting and writing were good--as this was a movie with a real budget and a studio who wasn't about to waste the star in a third-rate flick. So overall, it's worth seeing but not especially great.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Hanna-Barbera sucks the life out of another famous property. The violence is watered down, the stories are formulaic, the animation is bad, the music is obnoxious and repetitive, and frankly, the show just isn't funny.

At the time, H-B put every one of its series through the same cliched situations, regardless if it fit the world of the cartoon or not. Thus, Popeye and Bluto appear in a recurring segment as cavemen ("Hey! Popeye is popular, and the Flinstones are popular. Put 'em together, and you can't miss!"). Also, in an apparent ripoff of "Private Benjamin," Olive Oyl and the Goon have a regular segment that features them as new army recruits. Seriously! Why?

Adding to the annoyance factor are the public service announcements in every episode (standard practice at the time for cartoons, but still annoying). Popeye lectures his nephews on crossing the street safely, recycling, and - are you ready for this? - the dangers of smoking! (I swear I'm not making that up.)

The only charm remaining from the original cartoons is that Jack Mercer, the voice of Popeye from the early days, continues the role here.

Worth checking out once just to get a new appreciation for the old Fleischer shorts. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have seen this movie a whole dozen times and it's awesome. But the only thing with it was that in the beginning, there was too much talk of who's going out with who. I think that it would be interesting to do a remake of it. But on the official site, they said that they will not be making a remake of it because so many people have gotten saved when viewing it. What's even happened to Patty Dunning now? She is a pretty good actress. She has done several other movies in the 70s and 80s, but we haven't heard from her since. I know for sure about Thom Rachford, who plays Jerry, works for Accounting at RD Films. But overall, I have to say that the series itself is like Left Behind gone old school.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.