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

A: Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.

Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.

What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.

There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risque amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).

Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roue). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.

Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.

Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I wish I could give this movie a zero, or even lower, because sadly that's what it deserves. I honestly never walk out of a movie, but this one was so dreadfully awful that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Please,please, please- for the sake of mankind- skip this movie. If you want a hot lesbian movie that you can really delve into, this isn't it.

It has unattractive, unappealing leads, choppy structure, ridiculous dialog, and it is absolutely unconvincing in every imaginable way. On an absolutely basic level, it fails to entertain. Everything about "Mango Kiss" is so stagey, it is WORSE than any student film I have seen.

As if that weren't enough, the entire movie relies on constant (and I mean CONSTANT) voice over narration. The script writer may as well have written a novel, because they insisted on TELLING everything, instead of SHOWING it. We are just supposed to assume that Lou and Sassafras are the best of friends and have a special connection, even though there is no character development to illustrate this. Also, this film continues to introduce to new characters after the first five minutes, and not in a natural way, but in a freeze-frame of the characters with their name written over the screen. There is no introduction, no development of any of the characters. We don't really get to know any of them.

This is the most amateur movie I have ever seen.

I am a gay woman, who watched this film with my roommate (another gay woman) and we both found this movie to be a depressing representation of queer cinema. I am beginning to think that lesbian and gay movies are a lot like Christian rock - it doesn't matter how atrocious it is, people will still flock to it, and champion it, no matter how poor the quality is. Please don't rent this!! Instead, let's encourage the production of QUALITY gay and lesbian movies by renting "But I'm a Cheerleader" or "Fire" or "Heavenly Creatures", instead of swallowing whatever mindless tripe they aim at the gay community (i.e. Queer as Folk).
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.

Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.

*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.

This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.