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

Answer: I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This film is one of Tom Cruise's finest films. He captures the audiences imaginations with his role of David Aames. His character can relate to us all in some way.The story line is very clever and keeps the audience on edge throughout the whole film. I never really watched Cruise movies that much before but after seeing this it shows me his true talent. My favourite part in the movie is the end where it all comes to a big conclusion and he find out the truth. If you have not seen this yet you definitely should give it a try. It's one of those films that once you've started watching it you just got to see it until the end or it will keep you thinking and you will regret it. My opinion is you should just go buy it and take a risk thats what I did and it became one of my favourite films of all time. It's A* 10/10 I promise once you watch it, it will stick with you and you will like it forever.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).

If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.

The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.

No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.

I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: From very long, we are seeing movies on Gandhi. And mostly, the light is always on portrayal of Gandhi as freedom fighter or man with principles. But when I heard that a movie is being made which will highlight Gandhi as Father and stress on his relationship with his Son, it instantly hit my attention as this is one territory which is least being explored as it has his own dark side and less people shown courage to dwell into it. Fortunetly, Anil Kapoor (Producer) and Feroz Abbad Khan (Director) did.

The story start with Gandhi working in South Africa and his relationship with white people and his wife. Latter Akshay (Harilal) joined his father for becoming a barrister but his dream took overturn when his father (Gandhi) pushed (Or motivate) him to become freedom fighter. It showcase that Gandhi believes more on practical study rather then formal education. Harilal too try to walk on his father footstep but soon failed as its infatuation towards his wife, children and his own dream of becoming big success altered his path and then start the repulsion between son and father. He finally defeated his father in terms of pursuing his dream and to left him on his own terms. He written back to India but then start his unsuccessful stories which become bigger and bigger with time. I am leaving reader to see movie to catch further story...

Performance. First Akshay. He has given best performance of his tenure so far and is absolutely convincing in his portrayal as Harilal Gandhi. The scene in which he reach the room where his wife dead body is placed is one where you can see a fine actor which is hidden/developing in Akshay. Darshan jariwala is also good as MK Gandhi and able to live up such a larger then life character. He performed well and with quite an ease. Shefali Chaya (Now Shah) as Kasturba is brilliant actress and already proved her metal in TV serials. Bhumika chawla too performed well but actress of her candidature is waste in these kinds of role. Other actor have also justifies their performances.

Technique and Make up is also good and cinematography especially that Duo tone color picturisation was too good. Costume looks and match with context.

Overall, a worth seeing movie which is defiantly slow in progress and impatient people may find it boring but give you an insight of area which is not brought to silver screen till date. Also, the way story progress and connection of scene may look worn to some people and to critics especially but for an average movie watcher like me, it still enough to make me occupied on my seat till end.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is one of those movies that appears on cable at like two in the afternoon to entertain bored housewives while they iron. The acting is second rate. Poor Mathew Modine seems to sleepwalk through the whole film. And god help Gina Gershon. Her accent is too over the top. It sounds nothing like an true English woman. It sounds forced and phony, much like her acting. She should stick to what she does best, lesbian showgirl con-artist who plays in a rock & roll band and has a drug problem. The other characters are no better. They are two dimensional. empty, vapid and silly. How are we to supposed to care about these people. At one point Christy Scott Cashman get's lost in Central Park. Really? It's not that hard to navigate Central Park. Just follow any path out. Not only did I not care about ANY of the characters,I downright hated them. The only reason I even stayed with this train-wreck of a film was Fisher Stevens. Even his brilliant humor couldn't save this dying Fish. Each scene is typical romantic comedy fare and nothing is left to surprise us. The script was awful as was the acting. If you catch this Fish throw it back!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.

There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.

There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.

That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.

The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.