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

A: 'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I was thinking that the main character, the astronaut with the bad case of the runs(in his case, his skin, hair, muscles, etc) could always get more movie work after he'd been reduced to a puddle. All he has to do is get a job as the Blob. The premise of this flick is pretty lame. An astronaut gets exposed to sunspot radiation(I think), and so begins to act like an ice cream cone on a hot day. Not only is this a puzzler, but apparently he has to kill humans and consume their flesh so that he can maintain some kind of cell integrity. Huh? Have you ever noticed that whenever any kind of radiation accident or experiment happens, the person instantly turns into a killing machine? Why is that?

The astronaut lumbers off into the night from the 'secret facility'(which has no security whatsoever), shedding parts of himself as he goes. Apparently he retains just enough memory to make him head for the launch pad, maybe because he wanted to return to space.

Thus begins the part of the movie that's pretty much filler, with a doctor wandering around with a Geiger counter, trying to find the melting man by the buzz he gives off. He kills a stupid Bill Gates look-alike fisherman, scares a little girl a la the Frankenstein monster movie, and finishes off a wacky older couple(punishing them karmically for stealing some lemons). Then there's a short scene where he whacks his former General, and a very long scene where he kills a young pothead and chases his girlfriend around. You'd think that after she cuts his arm off and he run away, the scene would shift. But no...we're treated to about ten minutes of the woman huddled into a corner panting and screaming in terror, even though the monster is gone. All I could think was..director's girlfriend, anyone?

The end of the movie is even lamer than the rest of it. The melting man finishes turning into a pile of goo, and then...nothing. That's it. That's the end of the movie. Well, at least that meant that there was no room for a sequel.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.

All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.

1/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
"Fear Of A Black Hat" is everything the (much weaker) "CB-4" SHOULD have been. Rusty Cundieff's satirical eye is ruthless, as he folds, spindles, and mutilates every aspect of hip-hop trends and culture. Does "FoaBH" resemble Spinal Tap? Yes, a bit. Is it derivative of Spinal Tap? No, not really. The aim is more focused, the satire is better focused, and to be honest, it's funnier.