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

Answer: This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting.

Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.

I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.

My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"

I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks.

Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.

I should be ashamed for watching it.

I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right?

Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.

Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: David Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm

salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a

golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate

Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going

well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security

firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.

Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in

on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their

clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy

security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get

involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life

with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into

Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his

boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.

Based on a stage play, "The Alarmist" is not opened up well. The

scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents

are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line

with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells

sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other

than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she

does a lot with the little she is given.

Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the

security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand

Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a

sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary

McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but

she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds

is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially

telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.

The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too

soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,

except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can

break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just

to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.

Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He

relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those

AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this

weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better

choice in the role.

Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.

Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this

film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.

Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's

schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,

strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual

references, and adult situations.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady an aging actress or something who always dresses in black starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!!