Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I first saw this film 40 years ago on N.Y. television, and thought it was a depressing look at the future. Wells sees restriction of private freedoms as a good thing. (" no private airplanes". The 30 year plus war in the film was the reason this film was not shown to British film goers doing the war. The concept of the future, and the Korda an Co. concept of the the machines of the future are the real stars of the film. The very best acting performance is that of Ralph Richardson as the Boss. A combination of Winston Churchill and Edina from Absolutely Fabulous comedy series. It is interesting to note that the Boss's negative personality is somewhat similar to the war time Churchill.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: 'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.

How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.

The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.

All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.

The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.

Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "Fear Of A Black Hat" is everything the (much weaker) "CB-4" SHOULD have been. Rusty Cundieff's satirical eye is ruthless, as he folds, spindles, and mutilates every aspect of hip-hop trends and culture. Does "FoaBH" resemble Spinal Tap? Yes, a bit. Is it derivative of Spinal Tap? No, not really. The aim is more focused, the satire is better focused, and to be honest, it's funnier.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I saw the trailer for this film a few months prior to its release, and MAN, did it look scary, Especially how this film was based on a real life phenomenon. I was incredibly interested, and thought that this could finally be a decent horror/thriller film after years if crap. Well you know how movie trailers make a film look better than it is: maybe by showing all of the creepy parts or by overdramaticizing certain elements. The advertisements for the movie did both, which lead to my ultimate disappointment.

By no means is this "the most disturbing movie in years". Hell, I doubt it was the most disturbing movie of that week's release. This movie takes the whole "based off of fact" thing too far.

This movie wasn't complete crap. I must admit, it held my interest and Micheal Keaton was believable as a man searching for answers by supernatural means. Other than that, though, this film is one big cliche. After John's wife dies, he learns about EVP, which transmits the voices of the dead into everyday electronic appliances. He all of the sudden receives messages from his wife! My God! It's not just his wife reaching him, it's other dead people. Gee, imagine that. A movie about helping dead people. Come on, give me a break! The cliches don't stop there. There's also the obligatory clock-stopping-at-the-same-exact-time-every-night trick and three evil spirits that menace our hero. Not only was the movie cliche, it WASN'T SCARY. The film literally had two jump scenes, and those two scenes are almost identical. The ending is horrible, as it leaves the door WIDE OPEN for a sequel. There's also an ending message with a message saying how only 1 out of X voices heard through EVP are threatening, with a nice happy tune playing. Way to break the mood, you guys. Jeez! In the end, if you want another forgettable horror film, see White Noise. The only reasons I could possibly think anyone would watch this film for is that either that the person is a Keaton fan or that they are interested in EVP. Sure, the EVP aspects may be slightly interesting, but I don't like my movie concepts to be shoved down my throat and blown up in my face. This film tries to be scary, original, and disturbing, but it's just the opposite. You know you have a lame movie when the commercials use the ghosts to talk about there film. "I WILL SEE THIS FILM NO MORE."
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Although the beginning of the movie in New York takes too long, the movie is a must see for people who like this genre. When Hannah goes to Berlin to visit the older woman who helped her mother during the war, the movie gets much much better.The movie is a bit like The Pianist, can not really be compared.