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

Answer: The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
It's not just that this is a bad movie; it's not only that four of the "best" Mexican movie makers are in this film; and it's not only that the script is terrible. It's just that...this movie sucks...big time. This people are wasting money in terrible scripts. It's supposed to make a criticism about Mexican society but we're fed up with this kind of films. Is bad language supposed to be funny? I don't get it. Mexican cinema is in big trouble if this kind of movies are going to continue playing (and being written and produced).

Please, don't think this kind of movies are well received in Mexico: We hate them and they don't reflect us.