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

Answer: Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.

Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what?

None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.

This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!"
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: One of the best comedy series to ever come out of Britain. Mark Gatiss,Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton are terrific actors and performers who seem at home with drama as they are with comedy. Ably supported by their writing partner Jeremy Dyson, they have peopled the series with the most memorable characters of recent years. Little Britain pales into insignificance as a poor imitation of their ideas. Consistently original and groundbreaking I am sure that as many people hate these series as love them but I am equally as sure that no one could have no opinion on LOG. I have yet to see the feature length movie but I have heard good things and bad things so I will reserve judgement.The original radio series from which LOG came was as innovative as the TV series became. I don't know whether the TV series made it to the US but I would be fascinated to see how American audiences found the weird Englishness of the humour
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus.

First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.

So, if you don't care at all about the following:

- acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).

-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were).

- theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others).

- soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script).

- scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).

So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and "women," this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This could have been interesting a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.

The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department a giant crab attack is merely silly as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup!

At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Although I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's latest "serious" performances ("The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon"), I've always thought his real genious lies in physical comedy. This is not to say he is a fantastic, talented actor: those bozos at the Academy Awards seem to dislike him so much, he has never had a (truly deserved) nomination or award. Well, any "institution" that nominates for 11 Oscars a bore such as "Titanic" shouldn't be taken seriously.

On with the review. "The Grinch" is the sweetest, best looking, best acted, more enjoyable seasons film since "The Nightmare before Christmas". Both movies seem very similar, too, with their highly stylized sets and the premise of someone stealing Christmas. Both make their principal actors seem like the villains (one in a higher degree than the other), both pack a strong moral lesson, and both are truly enjoyable.

That is, until you realize that Jack Skellington is a doll, and The Grinch is a human being. But a human being that is so incredibly expressive, so fluid in his movements, so cartoon-like, so unreal, that never gets in the way of the movie. He can be hilarious, he can be a sad soul, he can be angry. He lives in a 3-dimensional world, where 3-dimensional people live. He jokes, he laughs, he cries, and ultimately he saves the Christmas. I loved this film to bits, and cannot wait for it to come out on DVD. This is one of those films you will really enjoy 10, 20 years from now. As timeless as they come.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.

This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.

Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.

There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.

But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.

In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.

Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.

That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliche story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.

But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.

Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.