Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The killings in this movie isn't that bad, but for sure the movie is. It's even worse than that. It's not even worth the wear it might cause when you slide it into your DVD-player.

Not even the wear it causes on your shoulders carrying it from the DVD-store, not to speak of the money and time you spend renting and watching it. Horrible.

It's beyond understanding how anyone could say anything positive about this movie. It was just a bare masochistic tendency of mine that caused me not to stop watching, add to that the group pressure from my co-watchers.

The manuscript is awful, the directing even worse and the acting is plain despicable.

I hope you don't see this as a spoiling your fun, i'd rather see it as a fair warning: Do not waste your time watching this garbage!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I watched The Babysitter as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. I think it is a very good film.

This movie packs a lot of story into a very short time. You have hippies, rock music, bikers, lesbians, sexual impropriety, blackmail, and murder, all in one spot!

The lead actors do a credible job. And, I found the intricately woven plot to be believable and interesting.

However, the supporting cast, primarily the bikers, delivers a stilted performance, particularly when asked to deliver lines with more than just a few words. Perhaps they used real bikers, instead of actors. A couple of the characters, in particular, were exceptionally believable.

The musical score is absolutely spot-on, for the times, the tempo, and for moving the story forward. I found the music a real treat. I noticed in the opening credits that the movie featured the music of "The Food," I googled them; but, couldn't find anything...

In any case, George E. Carey who wrote, produced and starred in this movie liked the idea so much (of a wayward married man brought to redemption through trials and tribulation; and, a little help - of course) that he wrote, produced and starred in "Weekend with the Babysitter."
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Although I rated this movie a 2 for showing a complete lack of effort in trying to create a quality horror film it was a 10 on the unintentional funny scale. I couldn't figure out what was going on in the movie or who the people were but I didn't care because I knew every scene was going to have something to make me cry with laughter. Dialogue is a minimum throughout the movie but I believe this is because they started filming without a script. The fact that there is no plot line makes the movie extremely versatile. It doesn't matter if you sit down and watch the movie from beginning to end or if you watch it in rewind you will be confused with enjoyment. I particularly like the scene in which the inmates are taking turns running around outside beating each other with sticks. I believe the doctor refers to this as treatment. Genius!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?

It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.

From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
It is very hard to rate this film. As entertainment value for 21st century viewers, it fails miserably. However, for the student of early sound films and history, it is a jewel. "Show of Shows" was a revue filmed to compete with MGM's successful "Hollywood Revue of 1929", which still survives intact complete with its Technicolor scenes.

The purpose of the all-star revue was to showcase a particular studio's silent stars in speaking roles, and show that they could make the transition. However, Warner Bros. seems to have forgotten this and employs many acts and stars that they didn't even have under long-term contract such as Ben Turpin, Lloyd Hamilton, Beatrice Lillie, and even a marching band. Meanwhile, their biggest talent - Al Jolson - is noticeably absent. Even at a high salary he could not be compelled to join in. Almost every act is overly long and the film plays like a dozen or so Vitaphone shorts strung together with no continuity. The finale is also overly long, but it is really enjoyable with all of its dance numbers.

The highlights of the film are two numbers from Winnie Lightner - "Pingo Pongo" and "Singin in the Bathtub", a couple of numbers with Nick Lucas, John Barrymore performing Shakespeare, and the Chinese Fantasy "Li Po Li" with Nick Lucas and Myrna Loy. This last number is the only part of the film that survives in Technicolor, and it really is quite attractive. Reasonably enough, the players in these good acts were long-term Warner Bros. stars so perhaps the director knew how to play to their strengths since he was familiar with them.

This film acts as a snapshot at an odd point in film history - the year 1929, which was the bridge year between two eras - the silent and sound eras, and the roaring 20's and the Great Depression. Just two years later this same film would have had an entirely different cast, as Warner Bros. would abandon its silent era stars and the stars they hired just to produce the early musicals in favor of those stars that gave Warner Bros. its distinctive urban look and feel - James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Edward G. Robinson, and others.