Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The 1st season was amazing, the whole idea of them adjusting to the island, while mysteries were being explored (And seen) was just phenomenal; filled with suspense, tons of cliffhangers, and an amazing plot. I mean, I love the whole idea of just seeing them get used to the island. And then first seeing the smoke monster in the first episode really caught my attention. From then on, I was hooked The second season was right on par with the 1st season, only a little better. I absolutely loved the idea of the hatches and the DHARMA Initiative. The whole plot and sequences of season 2 were mysterious, creepy, and exciting. I loved all the suspense surround others on the island, but the DHARMA story really made season 2 amazing.

Season 3 wasn't quite as good as 1 and 2 ... but nonetheless, great. I loved seeing the back-stories of the others, seeing their camp, and seeing the mysteries further explored. ("Tricia Tanak Is Dead" is one of my favorite episodes). This season, while not as good, was still breathtaking and fun, but most of all exciting! Now, the 4th season. I had hopes for this season, and the 1st couple of episodes we're good, but then it REALLY started to get boring and monotonous. I mean, I REALLY despise the new "rescuers" such as Miles and Daniel. The plot got old after the first couple episodes ... and MOST OF ALL .... Season 4 was stripped away of something which made LOST a perfect series: The mystery, suspense, comedy mixed in (Charlie gone) and overall excitement. Also, some of my favorite characters have left.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The version of this film I saw was titled 'Horror Rises from the Tomb'. The horror in question is a wicked Medieval magician played by Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy looking like he's playing Abanazer in a church hall panto. He rises from his tomb when a stupid descendant (I think he's a descendant, as he's also played by Naschy)returns to his ancestral home and reunites the magician's head and body, which had been separated by by the witchfinders who executed him, in an attempt to stop him, er, rising from the tomb.

Obviously, once head and body are back together all hell breaks loose and lots of people die. Like all good magicians, Abanazer here has a lovely assistant. This one's played by another Spanish horror great, the beautiful Helga Line. Like practically every other woman in the film Line periodically gets her kit off. There's a LOT of nudity in this film, and not just female - we even get to see Naschy's paunchy body, which isn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. Most of the film's sex angle is laughably gratuitous. There's one particularly funny scene where Naschy and Line discuss their evil plans and then suddenly decide to both have a grope of the nubile young blonde they've possessed.

It's also pretty gory in places - notably a Herschell Gordon Lewis-esquire moment where Line plunges her hands into a man's chest to remove his heart.

The best part of the film is the pretty effective zombies who turn up towards the end. They're quickly scared off by a fire though, and don't bother coming back. Which is a shame. The scene where the zombies rise, however, is the film's most ludicrously inept moment. It all happens in long shot, and we haven't really got a clue what's happening until we see some figures shambling on from the distance. There are several rubbish moments like this, thanks largely to poor editing. When a labourer falls under the hypnotic spell of Naschy's head there's a big close up of his face that seems to last forever and serves no purpose whatsoever.

All in all, not a great horror film, but entertaining enough. Of course, the version I saw was a dubbed American version that had probably been chopped to pieces. For all I know, the original Spanish version could be a masterpiece...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Great movie, enough laughs and action for any audience.

Since the last person who posted on this movie took it upon themselves to call Woody Allen incestuous and not comment on the film, here I am.

The film follows an unlikely duo, Johansson and Allen, as they follow a tip given to them by the ghost of a recently deceased English reporter. Their search takes them into the home of the killer, and eventually to a somewhat tragic end. But don't let the plot fool you, the film truly is hilarious and the acting is superb.

It seems that as directors reach a certain age they really get things right. Clint Eastwood, Allen and Pollack all seem to making some of the most imaginative work of their respective careers. Also, from watching the movie in a pact theater, you can just tell that people really love Woody Allen and are ready for him to really make a comeback. The second he walked on screen audience lit up. There's just something about the man and he really shines in Scoop.

Check it out, it's worth the trip.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.

The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.

Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.

Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.

despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
New York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called "Deathtrap", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford "Cliff" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's "Deathtrap" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.

"The Trap Is Set For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It."

Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. "Deathtrap" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling "Hello." The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, "even a gifted director couldn't ruin it." And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.

******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth