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

A: Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.

background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.

Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.

After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure.

Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Nicole Eggert was listed as the star of this, despite Micheal Dorn & Stacey Keach being much bigger stars than her.

Basically this is a bit of a spin on the "Alien lands on Earth" film. Eggert plays the girl who feels sorry for an Alien being chased by the military and takes in the runaway creature in her very sexy disguise. A bit of nudity and partial nudity, a pointless sex scene all feature along the way.

The film stumbles through a few obvious set-pieces and running jokes about being shown photographs. I quite liked the Star Trek jokes when Micheal Dorn had been taken over and he got a really cool death scene.

It was fairly obvious that Stacey Keach was going to be taken over and the film had quite a weak ending, it would have been nice to show exactly what kind of talent the Alien passed to Eggert.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.

Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result particularly in this bastardized edition is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!!

The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.

Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach".

"Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Oh dear we don't like it when our super-hero love interest develops a brain do we?

Something has happened to people, they have lost the ability to enjoy, a simple feel-good, love story/comedy? Kirsten Dunst is a revelation - funny, sexy and real. I laughed out loud ooh at least five times and I'm not ashamed to say had a tear in my eye a couple of times too. The cast, acting and script is great, I watch a lot of films right across the board and I haven't seen one in this genre that has been as successful. Those who disagree please tell me where I can find some! I'm sure the book is good too but I think you have to judge it on its own merits.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Description: Corny, utterly stupid and worthless. It's so cheap and lame, it'll make you wonder why these abnormally dumb people even wasted 2 months or so to spend a budget (I'm guessing this...) probably no more than 700 dollars to make this movie. It was just hysterical to watch with or without Mystery Science Theater. I am giving you the best advice in the world:

Spare yourself, spare your time, life, and money, by NOT--I repeat, NOT even ponder about whether you should see this movie. This movie is so corny, it'll make your face turn purple of outraged boredom. If you have a one-digit IQ, then be my guest and watch this absolutely despicable movie. You might actually admire it. (Like I said before, IF you have a one-digit IQ)

With about 12 actors of your own, a few puppets you bought at a garage sale, and of course cameras and music, I gaurentee you'll make a slightly more entertaining home video than this piece of absolute crap.