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

A: Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: First things first, I was never once scared of this underrated gem as a kid ("Little Mermaid" on the other hand...). As my title says this was one of my fav childhood movies that I still love as a teenager. It's a beautiful, bittersweet movie about a misfit German Shepherd called Charlie (fantasticaly voiced by Burt Reynolds) who is killed by his boss/partner in crime (is name ha,ha is Carface). Charlie is sent straight to heaven by default because "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind". Chalie gets sent back to Earth 'cause he winded up his life clock where he gets into even more mischief with his best friend, Itchy and a little orphan girl, Anne-Marie. I used to watch this all the time as a kid and I still sometimes watch it. Anyways, it's a beautiful bittersweet film as I said before that might just leave a tear in your eye...
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I have probably seen this movie over fifty times by now because of the kids they just cant get enough of Spirit. The best thing about the movie I think is that the animals isn't able to talk, this makes the whole movie more honest and makes a better impression on both kids and the adults so 10/10 from the kids and me
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I went into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.

Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.

It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.

It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.

The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.

But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.

Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.

4/10