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

Answer: This movie is a lot of fun. The actors really make the movie go the distance though. Without giving away the plot, I would describe it as a new Princess Bride cult favorite that should stand the test of time. You get to see a whole different side to Robert DeNiro in this movie! (Worth the price of admission just for that!) All the elements are there from adventure to romance, and well placed comedy.

People of all ages will enjoy it. (My parents even did!) Good special effects, may be scary for the little ones. Good date movie. Great for some escapism.

Deserves an A. (Hope it does well at the box office)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Put the blame on executive producer Wes Craven and financiers the Weinsteins for this big-budget debacle: a thrash-metal updating of "Dracula", with a condescending verbal jab at Bram Stoker (who probably wouldn't want his name on this thing anyway) and nothing much for the rest of us except slasher-styled jolts and gore. Christopher Plummer looks winded as Van Helsing in the modern-day--not just a descendant of Van Helsing but the real thing; he keeps himself going with leeches obtained from Count Dracula's corpse, which is exhumed from its coffin after being stolen from Van Helsing's vault and flown to New Orleans. This is just what New Orleans needs in the 21st Century! The film, well-produced but without a single original idea (except for multi-racial victims), is both repulsive and lazy, and after about an hour starts repeating itself. * from ****
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.

Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."

Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.

What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.

I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Dan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing.

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

Answer:
I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.

I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.

Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.