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

Answer: The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny.

On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.

Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.

The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.

Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.

Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of "seeing" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.

The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.

RATING: 9 of 10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).

Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: From a plot and movement standpoint, this movie was terrible. I found myself looking at the clock in theater hoping it would end and relieved after 80 long minutes that it mercifully did. Basically, five characters appear in the movie, A Son & Father, son's girl friend, and two male characters of the son's age who appear and then disappear without context or explanation. The movie and scenes seemed to suggest homo-eroticism, but nothing ever actually happened to reveal this one way or another. There were a couple of brilliant scenes. At the beginning of the movie, the son's girl friend shows up at a window outside his room and they engage in an odd conversation. The photography and acting lent an incredible seductiveness to the interaction between the two, ending with her admitting to having another man who was "older". End of that story.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!