Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clemence Poesy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is the second part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'.

In this one we learn how men and machines could not work and live together. It is a little history lesson in the world of 'The Matrix'. Not as good as the first part ('The Final Flight of the Osiris') but still pretty entertaining.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale and great humor, however other then that it's nothing special. All the characters are pretty cool, and the film is entertaining throughout, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. Jackie and Wai-Man Chan had fantastic chemistry together, and are both very funny!, and i thought the main opponent looked really menacing!, however the dubbing was simply terrible!. The character development is above average for this sort of thing!, and the main fight is simply fantastic!, plus some of the bumps Jackie takes in this one are harsh!. There is a lot of really silly and goofy humor in this, but it amused me, and the ending is hilarious!, plus all the characters are quite likable. It's pretty cheap looking but generally very well made, and while it does not have the amount of fighting you would expect from a Jackie Chan flick, it does enough to keep you watching, plus one of my favorite moments in this film is when Jackie (Dragon) and Wai-Man Chan(Tiger), are playing around with a rifle and it goes off!. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale, and great humor, however other then that it's nothing great, still it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Jackie Chan does a good job here with solid camera work, fantastic angles and keeping the film at a fast pace for the most part. The Acting is very good!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, hilarious, as usual does some crazy stunts, had fantastic chemistry with Wai-Man Chan, kicked that ass, and played this wonderful cocky character, he was amazing!, i just wished they would stop dubbing him!. (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Wai-Man Chan is funny as Jackie's best friend, i really liked him, he is also a very good martial artist. Rest of the cast do OK i guess. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen, everything about it is weak and incoherent. The acting is absurd, the costumes even crummier and the story is non-existent. This 'poverty row' sword and adventure film was meant to capture some of the success that "Beastmaster" and "Conan" enjoyed but it doesn't give us any reason to follow along. The lead character is tepid and dull, he can't even fight with a sword and the sword is from the 16th Century. All the action sequences are like that, slow and unrealistic, not to mention the castle and the horribly dated music playing whenever they are riding a horse. Don't even bother with this crap.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Yes, I did, as I sit here red-faced, remembering having felt almost guilty as I watched it a couple of weeks back while my wife chose to watch something as inconsequential (in comparison) as "Mommie Dearest."

How does one explain the appeal of "Batman and Robin" - I mean the only ones who ever really counted, Adam West and Burt Ward. It was a terrible show, with terrible plots and terrible acting - and, oh yes, it was terribly funny! And the same applies to this "reunion" and "flashback" movie. Adam and Burt are invited to an auction where the old Batmobile is going to be sold off for charity. But it gets stolen, and our pals (as themselves) jump into their old characters' personas (if not their costumes) and head off to find out what's happened. Along the way they reminisce about the series, and we see how it all came together in flashbacks, with Jack Brewer and Jason Marsden playing the young Adam and Burt of the TV series. It really was quite interesting to get some behind the scenes looks at the old series, and Adam and Burt just stepped perfectly back into character (even though they weren't really in character - well, you'd have to watch it to see what I mean.) It was also great to see Julie Newmar and Frank Gorshin.

If you're not a fan of the old series, you'll hate this. If - heaven forbid - you actually thought Michael Keaton and George Clooney made acceptable "Batmans" then you'll hate this even more. But if you grew up with Adam and Burt and are still willing to admit that you never missed an episode - well, this one's for you.

Yes, it's true - 9/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of "The Stage Manager", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.

This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.

Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.

It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about "Our" town, this is moral diction aimed at "Our" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.

I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.

Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the "right sort of people", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been "Any Town", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is.