Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Should this be an American movie I'd rate it 7: we've seen this before. Being this an Argentinean movie, and being myself Argentine, I'd like to give it a 10, since it's the kind of quality I'd been hoping -rather than expecting- for. It's superb quality is astonishing, given all the limitations imposed by the 3rd World...

I can't forget the scene when Diaz forces Silverstein's fiance to confess -you know what I mean if you saw the movie. I think that's the key moment of the movie, not surprising maybe, yet original. That's when the real action begins.

Before watching a movie I always try to gather some previous information. Being this a mainstream, satyric, commercial one, I press "Play" and make a suspension of reality and logic, I'd say the best state of mind to enjoy movies like this. It's impossible to discuss the plausibility of the whole plot, yet it's believable in a certain way. As for me, I couldn't stop laughing at every single joke and commentary -"sos malo" ("you're mean")... put in the mouth of Diaz, the greatest one.

I'm rather tired of seeing movies "designed for" Peretti. I know he's a superb actor, but sometimes I feel his roles unfairly opaque the rest, Luis Luque's role in this case. I'm not very fond of Argentine television, so I haven't seen much work from Luque, but it's pretty obvious that he's an excellent performer. His physical role, his stares, his content attitude in this movie made me fall in love with his performance. I think his role should need some upgrading, just to let him show us how great he can be!

I don't know whether Szifron is planning to make a sequel or not. I know he won't make it if it's to follow the rule that "second parts were never good", so if he makes it, I'll surely go see it. And I hope that, in the future, takes into account the possibility to give Peretti's counterparts the same chances to develop their roles.

Great movie, great performances, and lots of laughs!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I noticed at once that this movie really wasn't based on Dodie Smith's novel. In any case, it was a nice idea that Pongo and Perdita's son now had his own puppies. The cutest of the Dalmatians was, of course, little Snowball who was completely spotless till the very end of the film.

To be honest, I didn't know what to think when Cruella de Vil seemed to have changed completely kind. In fact I have often thought about the possibility that she could become friendly, but now that she so quickly changed into "herself" again and announced that she was Cruella once more, I almost began to be really worried about Chloe's Dalmatians.

Actually, the scene in which the puppies watched Lady and the Tramp while Chloe and Kevin had their dinner, was much better than I had expected. I also was fond of the parrot who played to be a dog, and it was incredible that the dogs had learned so many tricks for this movie.

Of course I was content that at the end the Dalmatians were saved again, but I would have liked to know what was going to happen to Cruella after she had lost her whole property. And what on earth could the dogs' home do with such a huge sum of money?

Finally, it was quite touching that Snowball also had spots at the very end of the film.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Just to mention one more thing about Gentleman Jim. I agree with all the assessments that make this among Errol Flynn's greatest outings in a career of great outings. I would think this role playing boxer Jim Corbett is more like his real personality than the swashbucklers he was typecast as. Flynn seemed like a party animal from his memoirs and was one guy whose real life was more exciting than his screen life. The extra thing I wanted to point out is notice the great montages, transitions, and still inserts that punctuate the film. Although the director was Raoul Walsh, a frequent collaborator with Flynn, with cinematographer Sid Hickox, the montages were made up by an up and coming editor named Don Siegel. I never knew Siegel went that far back but he's listed right in the credits. He would go on to a great career as action director himself.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: As you may or may not have heard, there is no actual fighting between vampires or zombies in this film. One may then ask why the title suggested such a thing, but really it's kind of appropriate because nothing else about this film made any sense either. There was absolutely no story or plot, just things happening. The acting was incredibly bad, worse than safeauto commercials bad.

Not only were there no fighting between vampires and zombies but I think there was only one scene with zombies even in it. Their make up looked as if it were applied by an 8 year old girl. The scene was totally random and out of place and featured one of the characters fighting the zombies off with a hedge trimmer (I'm not kidding) but they used chainsaw sound effects.

This was undoubtedly the poorest movie I've ever seen in my life. The only circumstance that I wouldn't totally ridicule every person responsible for production of this film is if I learned that it was produced entirely by 11 year old's.

Really though, even with all of the criticism I offer here, I'd suggest watching this movie solely based on the fact that it may very well be the worst movie ever, and because of this is quite comical. Even just counting the flaws in it should keep you entertained.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.

The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie is just plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.

Do not watch this, it not worth your time.