Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: As a young teenager at the time, Airwolf was compulsory viewing for a generation who wanted their "Cowboys and Indians" to have amazing gadgets and whizz-bang explosions.

In many ways, the show was essentially Knight Rider in the skies: similar comic-book technology, a central character who was essentially a loner, and echoing the concept of one man making a difference.

But in other, important ways, it was thematically very different from Knight Rider, Street Hawk, The A-Team and other action shows of the time. For one thing, the premise of the series is built not on a desire to help those in need, but by Stringfellow Hawke's possession of Airwolf for essentially selfish reasons (as leverage to try to find his MIA brother, St John). And then there is the dark edge provided by basing the series firmly in an 80s Cold War context, complete with Soviet espionage and Central American dictators, not to mention the enemy within. Sure, The A-Team constantly referred back to Vietnam and the team's status as fugitives, but it was generally done with a light touch and was rarely central to the plot itself. With Airwolf, the intrigue was key to the tone and direction of the show - although this was (ill-advisedly) diluted as the series went on.

With hindsight, the Cold War setting clearly dates the series, many of the stories are creaky and contrived, and much of what Airwolf does is clearly implausible even with today's technology. But that's really not the point. Airwolf was rip-roaring fun, it tried to tell interesting stories without relying solely on the big action sequences, and it didn't sugar-coat everything by miraculously ensuring nobody died. Sometimes it failed, but often it succeeded admirably - and on a TV budget to boot.

For UK readers, DMAX (Sky channel 155) have just started (Jan 2008) daily re-runs of Airwolf. Set your Sky+ box for this blast from the past - we may even get the re-tooled, re-cast (and sadly vastly inferior) fourth season, which to my knowledge has never previously been shown in the UK.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.

i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliche, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those cliches. i'd prefer e.g. "chucky" and "silent hill" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.

it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend "beyond belief" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I loved this movie. Great storyline and actors and good movie sets. It told the story in a way I can easily understand and pay attention to without falling asleep. I would like to know where I could get the soundtrack. I can not find it anywhere. Please email me if you know where I could get the soundtrack. Other than not being able to find the soundtrack I thought the movie was fascinating. Swayze did a great job. I think this is some of his best work. His past movies were OK, but this one really told a story for a change. This will go down in history as being one of the best TV films ever aired. Congrats to the producers and writers of such a great piece of work.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood "classics" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.

I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.

Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.

Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!