Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Understand i'm reviewing the film I have seen. I realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film, thus neutering it completely. When seeing names like Ginger Lynn and Jenna Jameson attached, I knew I wasn't going to get a horror classic, but at the very least I expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. But no, this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film, I mean it's easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes', but they suddenly cut away, or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. How does one screw up cannibals' and porn stars? I mean thats a winning formula, it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive's wife or something, because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. Reading about it a few years back in Fangoria, I was excited, it looked like a fun film, but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere, and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled Evil Breed. Hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday, as I think a good movie exists in this mess, but until then best grab a twelve pack of Bud, cause thats the only way you'll make it through this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - "It's about family. It's always been about family"?

The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.

Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This sequel is a total rehash of the first film. A completely pointless movie. It basically just took every single sceanrio of the first film and they redid it in Omen IV except with a female antichrist this time. It even ends the same way as the first one! The music is too busy and interfering, and because its pretty much a copy of Omen I, it's extremely predictable. It's not a horrible movie, it's not terribly made, there is much worse movies out there, this just had absolutely no point in being made. The Omen remake from 2006 is much worse, even more pointless than this, so I guess it has that. If you someone pointed a gun to your head and you had to choose to watch this sequel or the 2006 reamke, I guess I'd choose this.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: From what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
In light of the recent and quite good Batman the Brave and the Bold, now is the time to bear a fatal blow to that mistake in the life of Batman. Being a huge fan since the first revival by Tim Burton 20 years ago, I have been able to accept different tonalities in the character, dark or campy. This one is just not credible : too many effects, poor intrigues and so few questions. What is great about Batman is the diversity of his skills and aspects of his personality : detective, crime-fighter, playboy, philanthropist etc. The Batman shows him only in his karate days. And by the way, how come the Penguin is capable of such virtuosity when jumping in the air regardless of his portly corpulence ? And look at the Joker, a mixture of Blanka in Street Fighter 2 and a stereotypical reggae man, what Batman fan could accept such a treason ? Not me anyway. Batman is much better without "The" article in front of his name.