Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Rob Estes, Josie Bisset and a crap load of kids that look nothing like either of them.

Basically, Rob and Josie have a shotgun wedding on a drunken night during a Vegas vacation. They each come home to find that their respective children already know of the nuptials due to tabloid-like not-so-fodder. They, Rob and Josie, move both of them and their eight kids into one or the other's house.

Rob builds furniture, I think, which is close enough to Frank Lambert's (Patrick Duffy) construction job on the much similar Step by Step to warrant eternal mockage.

Josie is some sort of cookie-making queen, though it doesn't look like she makes any of the cookies. Not close enough to Carol Foster's (Suzanne Somers)hairdressing job to warrant likeness mockage, but hilariously preposterous enough to warrant atrocity mockage.

Unlike Step by Step, they were a couple before the vacation and actually knew one another's last names, or so one assumes if their serious enough about a relationship to take a trip together.

Anyhow, there are eight kids; Moira, Sandy, Jeff, Lily, Daisy, Nathan, Andrew L. and Andrew B. I, personally, think they should've just called the younger Andrew 'Andy'.

There's a lot of product placement, particularly for Soup at Hand (Which is disgusting) and Listerine Pocket Packs. There are also some stupid, senseless moments. It's also not a great film to promote happy families.

But, hey! Rob Estes! This concludes my review of 'Step By Step... on some really bad drugs.' Watch it for Rob Estes and his pretty!eyes. There are some great pretty!eyes shots.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a cleaver film featuring love through the ages. The film consists of Keaton seeking out a lady love in the stone age, in ancient Rome and in the present (1920s). In all three cases, he is the usual wimpy Buster and he battles against Wallace Beery for his lady love. Of the three time periods, I think I liked the Roman one best even though I admit it might have also been the cheesiest. I actually liked the scenes with the lion that was obviously a guy in a costume as well as the weird chariot race in the snow--but what I really enjoyed the most was seeing all of Keaton's amazing acrobatics. However, all three time periods were good old fashioned fun and the film, while not his best, is still an exceptional and enjoyable film. Check it out!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Awwww....yes, it is heartwarming and all that some unlucky family gets adopted by ABC/Sears and has their home "renovated." That's where the humanistic appeal ends. I liked it early in its run, but now this show has become disgustingly excessive.

Ten needy families could be given relatively luxurious homes with lots of goodies for every one family that each episode of this show splurges on. The people at Habitat For Humanity must be shaking their heads in disbelief. For example, is it necessary for a healthy sixteen year old boy to have a jacuzzi in his bedroom, or have his bed tricked-out with "Low Rider" hydraulics? Does the mom really need her dilapidated, non-running and rusted out old pick-up truck restored and "pimped" by some of the best customizers in California? A new one would have done the job quite nicely, and probably for a third of the price. Do people really need a sixty-five inch plasma screen in every room of the house? And then there's the issue of who pays the increased property taxes and utility bills. Even after the zaniacs at "Makeover" leave, somebody still has earn a living. I doubt the friendly folks down at Social Services will see the humor in all of this largess.

This show is nothing more than a ratings grabber for ABC, and a tacit commercial for its sponsors.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Went to see this as Me and my Lady had little else to do on a sunday afternoon I like films that deal with sleazy,loser characters and this is full of em. After a slow start we get some good turns from the cast but it is the actual 'Bellini' that both makes and lets the film down. The 'Bellini' is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a film for a long while but is too short and could have made this a masterpiece overall 71/2 out of 10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This is a really strange film--and that is NOT a bad thing. It is a combination of a neo-realistic film about the homeless AND a fairy tale. I'm sure that some may find this movie a bit too strange, but I loved it. Once again, this director brings together a wonderful cast of everyday people (not actors) and gets a great ensemble-type performance. Although not nearly as sad as Umberto D, both movies have a very similar point to make--this one just does it in a very absurdist way. Ignore the cheesy special effects--after all, it was made in the early 1950s and special effects aren't terribly important anyway (or at least they shouldn't be in films). Instead, just sit back and enjoy the very strange and silly ride. Unless you are a total curmudgeon, you'll have a ball.

By the way, since I first reviewed this film, I have seen another DeSica directed film that is an absolute must-see and that is THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING US. While not a fantasy or light in spirit like MIRACLE IN MILAN, a great film nevertheless.