Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This show is good. I like the acting, funny bits and the cuteness of it. The actors, Lee Pace, Ann Friel... etc, they all did great in the show. The show started off great with its funny, illogical basic idea of bringing dead people back in the first series and honestly, as what people said, the first few episodes of the second series were a bit of a let down but it later came back looking good anyway. And now I really hate the fact that it's going to be cancelled. Why doesn't ABC just let it finish until the very end when all the episodes are already done?? I really wanna know how the story's going to be. I think it should be given a chance as there're still so many viewers who love it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is a quirky movie that the Brits do so well. Low budget, cameo type roles, well executed. The story is a little weak, a recently widowed Judi Dench decides to round up the "blonde bombshells' a all (well almost all) girl band who performed during the war in London. The obligatory son/daughter who thinks she's gone potty. I did like the way the movie lets young people see that they don't have a monopoly on feelings, love and even lust! That the "old wrinklies" can have a good laugh too. Judi Dench was superb as always, a pity we didn't get to see more of the other "blonde bombeshells, the end was a little rushed I thought. I kept thinking as I watched that David Jason would have made an even better Patrick than Ian Holm, although he was quite adequate as the "transvestite" drummer. All in all a cheery movie well worth a night in with the girls :)
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.

*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.

who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.

Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
"The Classic War of the Worlds" by Timothy Hines is a very entertaining film that obviously goes to great effort and lengths to faithfully recreate H. G. Wells' classic book. Mr. Hines succeeds in doing so. I, and those who watched his film with me, appreciated the fact that it was not the standard, predictable Hollywood fare that comes out every year, e.g. the Spielberg version with Tom Cruise that had only the slightest resemblance to the book. Obviously, everyone looks for different things in a movie. Those who envision themselves as amateur "critics" look only to criticize everything they can. Others rate a movie on more important bases,like being entertained, which is why most people never agree with the "critics". We enjoyed the effort Mr. Hines put into being faithful to H.G. Wells' classic novel, and we found it to be very entertaining. This made it easy to overlook what the "critics" perceive to be its shortcomings.