Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Best Stephen King film alongside IT, though this one is more fun than scary.

This one's got it all:

-a great cast with a Alice Krige and Brian Krause and a fun cameo from King himself;

-well dosed horror in an amusing storyline;

-great use of music, Santo & Johnny's "Sleepwalk" in particular;

-likeable characters in a typical King setting: middle of nowhere village;

-lots of humor. You can't really get good scares here because it's too much fun and over the top;

-old but really nice makeup effects like they don't make anymore!

A 4,5 rating: I don't get it really. When was the last time a horror film was as much fun as this one?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This "film" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.

So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.

The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.

This "film" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.

Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.

Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, "it's grindhouse chop-socky!" or "cheesy in a good way!" or "it's so bad, it's good!" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.

This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this "film" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Mimicking its long title the movie finds ways to come close to the 90' mark. The beautiful sets are here with all that made the Hamer production values a trademark, yet Paris drowned in the fog is a sign of indolent neglect. The story is obvious and can be summed up in a dozen words so there comes nothing unexpected and nothing worth more than 5% of your attention to be expected.

The directing is heavy as a direct transfer from the stage play, actors are mostly stiff as wax figures (ok this is a Hamer feature, only it's sometimes better featured in the whole package). My conclusion: this movie is trash, not worth the time I spend that evening. Eternal life is a boring matter and I should have hoped the guys in charge of programming at the Cinematheque would have known better.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. It has very good acting by Hanks, Newman, and everyone else. Definitely Jude Law's best performance. The cinematography is excellent, the editing is about as good, and includes a great original score that really fits in with the mood of the movie. The production design is also a factor in what makes this movie special. To me, it takes a lot to beat Godfather, but the fantastic cinematography displayed wins this contest. Definitely a Best Picture nominee in my book.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I can't believe the likes of Guillermo del Toro and Kim Bassinger got involved ins this piece of garbage! The script is so poorly written and the directing so weak (both by the same person) that its hard to find more one-dimension characters in a film. The dialogs are so lame that this so called thriller got laughs out of the few fools that got into the theatre. The setup it's tricky, inviting you to believe you are going to watch a chilling thriller and suddenly it turns out into the most stupid persecution film. Bassinger's character is so dumb, that she actually stops to scream to God "Where are you!" so the people after her can follow, and then takes a leak!!!! And then she apparently got into the smallest wood in the world, I mean, she runs all over the place and the killers never loose track of her, and this happens in the middle of the night. It really makes me wonder, is that really the best writing people in Hollywood can find that they spend millions producing it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.