Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I must agree with the very first comment: this movie sucks very, very hard. Despite having a very big B-list cast, the cover of this film (for those who aren't watching it on Comedy Central during a weekday which is probably the only exposure this film will ever get) tries to put the blame on Dangerfield but in reality is just a paycheck for every has-been comedian from the '80s. Randy Quaid? Check. Ed Begley, Jr? Check. The voice of Lisa Simpson? She can now say that Maximum Overdrive wasn't her only horrible flick: double check. And so many, many others.

The saddest thing about this flick is that it was so lazily written with already-told jokes. Nothing about this movie outside of its existence is funny. You're better off watching paint dry. This is definitely direct-to-video scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that still believes in the old video adage: throw an old-time star on the cover and you'll get some money back off of the rental. Considering the days of video rental are changing, consider this one of the last examples of putting out garbage.

The only use this movie has if you're having trouble falling asleep. It'll get you there.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In the first Howling, we are introduced to a world where werewolves exist and are somewhat organized. The plot in that film made some sense; a TV reporter investigates this and attempts to uncover the truth. She ends up having to kill many of them including her boyfriend who becomes one. Then she shows the world that they do exist by transforming on live TV. The special effects were just laughable in the first movie and they don't get any better in this one. Whether it's the transformations or the bad puppets or the cheesy computer graphics showing the superpowers.

The plot line isn't all that bad; they must kill the leader of the werewolves for some reason. This won't destroy all werewolves and it really doesn't end the threat from werewolves as it...they just want to kill her. I think there was some cloudy reason for this but it really gets lost in the film.

After the film "ends" we have a 10 minute montauge of the movie we just watched and every other scene is one where the female werewolf leader rips off her top exposing her large breasts while some Devo-esquire band plays to a crowd of werewolves.

The only thing that makes this movie even watchable is Christopher Lee.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.

Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.

Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.

My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".

Love it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.

That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.

Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".

There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.

Rating:- * 1/2/*****
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back .
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.