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

A: I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Being a huge fan of the Japanese singers Gackt and Hyde, I was terribly excited when I found out that they had made a film together and made it my mission in life to see it. I was not disappointed. In fact, this film greatly exceeded my expectations. Knowing that both Gackt and Hyde are singers rather than actors, I was prepared for brave yet not really that fulfilling performances, but am delighted to say that both of them managed to keep me captivated and believing the story as it went on. Moon Child has just the right amount of humour, action, romance and serious, heart-wrenching moments. I can't say that I've ever cried more at a film and these more tender moments are admirably acted by the pair, in my opinion, definitely proving their skills as actors. The fight scenes are absolutely stunning and although there are a few moments of uncertainty to begin with, you are quick to get into the movie and begin to bond with the characters. I thoroughly recommend this film to anyone, especially those who are fans of Gackt and Hyde.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.

This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.

A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Moran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?

Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.

The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.

Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "The Screaming Skull" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw "House on Haunted Hill" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.

Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.

In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.

The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.

But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.

I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.

William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.

Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.