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

Answer: Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The first film ever made. Workers streaming from a factory, some cycling, most walking, moving right or left. Along with Melies, the Lumieres are both the starting point and the point of departure for cinema - with Melies begins narrative fiction, cinema, fantasy, artifice, spectacle; with the Lumieres pure, unadorned, observation. The truth. There are many intellectuals who regret the ossification of cinema from the latter into the tired formulae of the former.

But consider this short again. There is nothing 'objective' about it. The film is full of action - a static, inhuman scene burst into life, activity, and the quiet harmony of the frame is ruptured, decentred from the back to right or left (but never, of course, the front, where the camera is). And yet the camera stands stock still, contains the energy, the possible subversion, subordinates it to its will. The cinematograph may be a revolutionary invention, but it will be used for conservative purposes - to map out the world, edit it, restrict it, limit it.

worse is the historical reality of the film. These factory workers are Lumiere employees. The bosses are spying on their workers, the unseen eye regarding his faceless minions. The film therefore describes two types of imprisonment. Behind the gates, the workers are confined in their workplace. The opening of the gate seems to be an image of freedom, escape, but they face another wall, the fourth wall, further confining them. The first film is also the first example of CCTV surveillance, an image of unseen, all-seeing authority entrapping its servants. A frightening, all too prophetic movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I went to see this movie with a crowd that consisted predominantly of "spiritual" New Age types, who, quite unlike me, very much enjoyed this movie---although according to those that also knew the book (apparently there is a book that contains more of this nonsense), the movie is not quite as good. So, if you tend to think of yourself as "spiritual", believe in or at least can tolerate stuff like "aura" and "astral body", and don't mind the frequent use of the term "energy" outside of the context of physics or technology, you might actually like the movie, and will likely even more enjoy whatever book it is apparently based on.

However, if you are mostly in touch with the physical universe, if your ability to suspend disbelief is easily exhausted by inane New Age nonsense and plots based thereon, if in addition to that you have a low tolerance for cheesy lighting effects to denote the happening of spirituality, and perhaps even expect reasonable non-wooden dialog an acting, then this is my recommendation for you regarding this movie: Stay. Away.

Don't even think about it. Tonight, this movie displaced Dungeons and Dragons as the worst movie I ever personally saw in a movie theater (I do not count movies I went to see with the expectation of them being bad, such as Plan 9 etc.). At the same time, it raised the grand total of movies I almost walked out on to two (D&D being the other one). I do not walk out on movies, not even on this one, but I should've when I first saw the visual depiction of an aura, because the New Age BS keeps on getting thicker and thicker from that point on.

The plot is about a group of people involving themselves with some old prophecies, in a quest for spiritual enlightenment and aiming at bringing mankind to the next step in its evolution. Or something like that. They actually talk about this spiritual stuff being the next step in human evolution, which should make anybody who has even the faintest idea of what human evolution is cringe. The movie is shock full with whoppers like that. Occasionally people beam to what they would certainly describe as "another dimension", or perhaps "another plane", only to become invisible to those around them who haven't yet reached enlightenment. Goodness.

At the end the director patronizes the audience by rolling the "insights" making up the prophecy, painfully slow, presumably so that we can memorize them and leave the cinema as better, more enlightened individuals.

Good things about the movie? Some very pretty nature shots, and some decent supporting performances by Elizondo and de Almeida.

I honestly can say that it seriously affects my ability to take a person seriously if they consider this movie interesting or acceptable. It really is el cheapo spiritualism of the most naive kind, and unless that's your thing, you better do something else with your time and money.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Great CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan.

Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime.

This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the "resolution" with Jenny at the end.

With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.

Watch this film and ask yourself "What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?"

Forrest seems to have made the "right" choices and been at the "right place at the right time" for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN quality?