Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling?

Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book).

Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. "Summer Of Sam" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.

The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.

The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?

Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.

The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.

The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Johnny Dangerously falls completely in the hit or miss category with it's overblown gags and complete lack of a comprehensive script or story that makes ANY sense. But that's the point, right?

The cast is likable; Michael Keaton an excellent comic performer before he took himself too seriously as the years passed. Griffin Dunne, Peter Boyle, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner and Danny DeVito all perform with enthusiasm and at least get a lot of laughs from me. But the complete scene stealer here is Richard Dimitri (sneaking the word "Iceholes" into movie history) as a mobster who fares best at murdering the English language.

I associate many childhood memories with this film, as I watched it quite often so maybe I'm prone to enjoy it more than many others. Johnny Dangerously is at least a completely innocent gangster film spoof that even relays some well meaning messages about the dangers of smoking (and sex).

I like it but it's hard to recommend.

7 out of 10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Ok, first of all, I am a huge zombie movie fan. I loved all of Romero's flicks and thoroughly enjoyed the re-make of Dawn of the Dead. So when I had heard every single critic railing this movie I was still optimistic. I mean, critics hated Resident Evil, and while it may not be a particularly great film, I enjoyed it if not for the fact that it was just a fun zombie shoot-em up with a half decent plot. This however, is pure crap. Terrible dialogue, half-assed plot, and video game scenes inserted into the film. Who in their right mind thought that was a good idea. The only thing about this movie (I use the term loosely) that I enjoyed was Jurgen Prochnow as Captain Kirk (Ugh). While his name throws originality out the window, you can see in his performance that he knows he's in a god awful film and he might as well make the best of it. Everyone else acts as if they're doing Shakespeare. And very badly I might add. Basically the only reason anyone should see this monstrosity is if you a.) Are a huge zombie buff and must see every zombie flick made or b.) Like to play MST3K, the home game. See it with friends and be prepared for tons of unintentional laughs.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Ruth Gordon at her best. This episode is my favorite of the whole Columbo series. Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon worked so well together that they should both be inducted into the television hall of fame, regardless of the rest of their work. Even the music was outstanding in this episode.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
As an anti-football person, I (on the surface) grudgingly took my younger brother to see this film, although secretly I hoped it might be East is East II. The trailers looked fun so I thought I'd give it a go.

It took about ten minutes but after that I was glued to the screen, and that wasn't anything to do with the neck cramp caused by sitting too near the front due to a packed auditorium. The acting was fresh and vibrant, the characters engaging, and the jokes genuinely funny. The entire auditorium was laughing out loud every minute or so. Football fan or no football fan, sport became irrelevant to the main principles of love, friendship, family, independence and rivalry. Add a dash of Sikh culture and you have the formula for the best British comedy I've seen in a long time, dare I say it.... better than East is East.

This film trots along nicely at a lovely pace, never dwelling on anything longer than necessary nor leaving anything unfinished, keeping the viewer entertained and mentally engaged. Though not a characteristically twisting-and-turning film, there are some pleasant surprises on the way and things don't always happen as you would expect.

Saying that, there were elements of predictability but these were exploited satirically more than used as script-fillers. I suppose depending on your particular penchant for happy-endings you could be either delighted/let down by the ending. Personally, if there was any other outcome I would have written a strongly worded letter to the script writers.

As for the actors, I would have to say that Juliet Stevenson (Paula) put in the finest performance. I never knew that people like that existed but she her realism with sometimes bizarre concepts has convinced me that they possibly do! Prize for the most unconvincing (of the main characters) goes, unfortunately, to Kiera Knightley (Jules), but don't get me wrong, even she offered a great performance, it's just that someone has to be last of the best and sorry Kiera, this time you're it.

Tip: Don't leave before the credits. Once the lights came back up I realised to my horror that perhaps I shouldn't have watched this film after all. My beloved but forgotten Ice Junkie had melted into a sugary blue juice. Oh, what am I saying, it was absolutely brill and I can't recommend it enough. I will definitely buy it when it comes out and add it to my collection of 3 videos. I'm a student. I only splash out if it's really worth it.