Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I was excited to view a Cataluna's film in the Berlin's competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film's history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In a word - excellent. This is THE MOVIE. Go and see it. The director Ron Howard... I mean, The Director Ron Howard did a fantastic job, as he usually does. An incredible attention to detail, vivid colors and decorations, breathtaking Whoville atmosphere, astonishing variety of costumes. Wait, there's more to it than that - the story is very good, too. There's clearly a message to be extracted from it by the thoughtful viewers. Jim Carrey is top-notch. He is probably the best Grinch possible. The girl, Taylor Momsen, is real good. I'm sure she has some great future. The dog is cool. All in all, it's a very high quality Christmas fairy-tale. If you like fairy-tales, it's for you. If you like Christmas, it's for you.

Reading some other reviews here... Get a life. It hurts me every time to see people out there who... well... got their hearts two sizes too small.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Watching this movie is like eating a banquet of nothing but meringue. It initially looks great but ultimately provides NO satisfaction--none.

The plot is a muddled mess about a toy factory and the forces of evil. So, how is it possible that with this basic plot AND Robin Williams that the movie still turns out so badly?! It's because the picture is all appearance with no substance whatsoever--much like the terrible Popeye picture Williams did at the beginning of his film career. The film must have cost a fortune but perhaps there wasn't enough money left over to hire writers who had graduated grade school.

The film is one unfunny joke that goes on and on and on and on. I really am unsure why it was made in the first place--it certainly wasn't made to provide any sort of entertainment.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.

Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when "significant" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.

Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.

I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?

I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.

FART JOKES.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Yes, even as a fan of shows like survivor and the apprentice, this show is pretty bad. I didn't mind the first couple of shows, but then realizing how pathetic everyone was to actually go on the show in the first place.The antics of Alex and Aaron giving men a bad name at the way they cheated on or dumped their choice at the first opportunity really was not a good look for the show.

Ryan, you can have Trista. She had the most annoying voice I've ever heard on television, and she definitely wasn't the smartest girl around (very media savvy, but I doubt there's much more there).

I haven't really watched any of the shows since, apart from the occastional re-run on daytime TV. I think the point of reality TV is to treat it as "entertaining trash". View it as something you can laugh over, and don't have to think too hard about ( I don't watch CSI its like reality TV-tired and cliched, but you have to think too much anyway while watching).

A couple of thoughts on some reasons fro going on the show. At the very first 'the woman tell all" Woman such as Amy ( who had a lot of class about her) commented that she had tried every scene aka the bar and club scene to meet a guy and it wasn't happening for her. Hey Amy, how about joining a club? getting a hobby? doing charity work? changing your job to one where you meet more guys? gees, all I know is that going to a bar is not the ideal place to meet a future partner.

Amy and many of the other girls seemed to be obsessed with the idea of meeting "the perfect man'. Clue to ladies: he doesn't exist. There are, however, many great guys out there that would make great husbands, some who may be right for you! they may not earn six figures a year or be a JFK junior look alike, but they are great guys all the same. The shallowness of woman on this show is quite unbelievable. Im still a youngster, at was lead to believe that woman gradually grew out of their shallowness as they got older and more realistic about their future partner. This show is proving otherwise.

Overall this show does a lot to confirm many stereotypes of how woman view men in society. It really is a terrible show and I think all of these types of shows should just stop being made. The best dating shows by a country mile are Blind Date and The Fifth Wheel because they are fun. Nothing is manned more between the "couples" than a simple night out. the bachelor, sadly takes itself way too seriously.