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

Answer: His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.

Instead, "Doctor Detroit" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?

It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.

One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see "The Blues Brothers". You want bad, see "Doctor Detroit".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Screened at the San Francisco International Film Festival under the title ' Come Undone', April 25, 26, & 27, 2001. The cinematographer uses techniques that add to the storytelling. Even with fall/winter backgrounds for the 'present' and spring summer for the 'flashbacks' there can be some difficulty following the continuity.

Whether either lead is gay, the actors well-portray the budding relationship in real life terms; from physical violence toward each other to their passionate lovemaking. The story pulls you into the characters a bit slowly in the beginning. But as the end approaches, you really care about where these guys will be next summer! You, too, will want a sequel to find out.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a cliched and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The best thing about this movie is that it is fun. It is full of humorous characters and interesting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other great characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.

The movie gently makes a point about how every day life has many riches to offer, and it succeeds in making this point without being too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - but "Pecker" avoids these traps, allowing the audience to get the point while allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.

I recommend the movie mostly because it is a lot of fun.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.