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

A: Having watched this film strictly on the strength of reviewers' ratings I was most pleasantly surprised. Although clearly low-budget, it bears the signs of clever ingenuity. For example, when Julia wakes in the strange house and looks out the window I found myself thinking that her sense of isolation would be enhanced with an exterior shot focused on her face and then moving backwards to include the house and its isolated location. And lo and behold! the next scene was exactly that last shot of the house standing lonely on the cliff at the water's edge. There are other examples of how a clever director can elevate his film to the level of a very enjoyable thriller. Savvy viewers will surely spot them but should rest assured they will not be disappointed.

As to the performances, George Macready is his usual creepy self, barely maintaining his composure while suggesting a capacity for unadulterated violence. Nina Foch was surprisingly good as the no-nonsense working girl who's not about to submit without a fight. But Dame May Witty, oh boy, she even had me doubting my own eyes and believing she could get away with her evil schemes.

This a real diamond in the rough and not to be missed.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: How can anybody say that this movie is a comedy?? If I had not gone with then my finacee I would have fallen asleep and asked for my money back. I love Gwen Paltrow, but it was like she was on the wrong set. I like most chick flicks, but I hated this one. This is the only time I saw so much clevage and was not turned on. Those outfits were way overdone. No one talks that way anymore and I don't think they even did then. The dancing part was horrible.My ex said to me later..."Didn't ya like that part? Didn't ya think it was sensous?" I said yes only to spare her feelings. Now I know why we never married.This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.

full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.

On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.

Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.

The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment ('Phantom of the Megaplex,' 'Stepsister From Planet Weird,' 'Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great ('Genius,' 'The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured 'The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, 'The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's 'Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.

The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.

There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical 'overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in 'The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him 'I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.