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

A: ...when he remade Broadway BILL (1934) as RIDING HIGH (1950). Recasting Bing Crosby as DAN BROOKS did not help a screenplay that was 'dated' in 34 let alone 50. This sad film has entire scenes lifted from the original with many of the supporting cast repeating their roles, unless they were dead. Though being older did not seem to matter to the Director. Nor that the Cars and Clothes in the background plates from 1934 did not seem match up too 1950s' standards. Not even 'der Bingel' singing can redeem this effort.

We rated both the original and the remake IMDb Four****Stars. Frank's touch was long gone and all that was left was CAPRA-CORN. That did not stop Mr. Capra though. After floundering around the 50's making some educational documentaries he wound up his career remaking LADY FOR A DAY (1933) as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961). Again a fine cast was let down on that IMDb Six******Star effort compared too the originals Eight********Stars. Sometimes it is better to quit while you were still ahead, right after STATE OF THE UNION (1948).
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.

After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.

In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.

Although Loretta Young is the lead, the outstanding performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.

Interestingly, unlike most movie of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, but it's quite a charming little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's highly recommended viewing when it does show up.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience