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

Answer: Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.

The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc.

The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.

*Spoiler Alert*

The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.

Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.

Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby?

*End Spoiler*

The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.

I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Now what's wrong with the actors that took part in that crap? Michael Dorn should stick to the Star Treck merchandise. John Diehl, does anyone remember him in Miami Vice? Liked him there... Well, whatever - what can one expect from a movie with one of the lifeguards from baywatch in the lead? Nothing, and that's what we get. None of the characters is even likable, the special effects are hilarious (but not funny). The story is a (very bad) joke. There is no logic whatsoever for what's happening. I got the feeling that the film makers were trying some kind of "Attack of the killer tomatoes" kind of thing. Especially in the scene where all the important people were discussing national security in some kind of a closet...

If you happen to see it on TV, switch channels - your TV set will be ever thankful.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.

I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.

It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.

It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.

The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.

The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.

Overall, a waste of time.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Every scene was put together perfectly.This movie had a wonderful cast and crew. I mean, how can you have a bad movie with Robert Downey Jr. in it,none have and ever will exist. He has the ability to brighten up any movie with his amazing talent.This movie was perfect! I saw this movie sitting all alone on a movie shelf in "Blockbuster" and like it was calling out to me,I couldn't resist picking it up and bringing it home with me. You can call me a sappy romantic, but this movie just touched my heart, not to mention made me laugh with pleasure at the same time. Even though it made me cry,I admit, at the end, the whole movie just brightened up my outlook on life thereafter.I suggested to my horror, action, and pure humor movie buff of a brother,who absolutely adored this movie. This is a movie with a good sense of feeling.It could make you laugh out loud, touch your heart, make you fall in love,and enjoy your life.Every time you purposefully walk past this movie, just be aware that you are consciously making the choice to live and feel this inspiring movie.Who knows? What if it could really happen to you?, and keep your mind open to the mystical wonders of life.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is mostly a story about the growing relationship between Jeff Webster(Jimmy Stewart) and Ronda Castle(Ruth Roman). She takes an instant liking to Jeff in a brief encounter on the deck of the steamer to Skagway, and a longer look when he hides in her cabin while authorities seek him on a charge of murder. They find out they have some things in common besides an animal attraction. Neither trusts a member of the opposite sex, apparently because both have been married to spouses who cheated on them. Gradually, they learn to trust each other, as they journey from Skagway to Dawson. But Ronda clearly has close dealings with corrupt sheriff Gannon and engages in some shady practices in her Castle saloon in Skagway. She eventually has to decide between Gannon and Jeff. Meanwhile, Rene, a young naive French woman also takes an immediate liking to Jeff, but only gets insulting brush offs in return. Yet, she sticks with him in his travels from Skagway to Dawson and his activities around Dawson. Along with Ronda, she nurses him back to health after Jeff is left for dead by Gannon's gunslingers at his gold claim. Walter Brennan, as Ben, serves as Jeff's long time sidekick. He doesn't have a meaty role, but serves to soften Jeff's hard edges. His demise symbolically opens the door for a woman companion replacement for Jeff.

John McIntire(as Sheriff Gannon) makes probably the most charismatic evil town boss you will ever see on film, oozing charm and humor to go along with his bullying. Evidently, he sees something of himself in Jeff, repeatedly declaring that he's going to like him. He makes a believable incarnation of the infamous Soapy Smith, who spent his last years in Skagway, as one of the premier con men of his times.

Jeff is the quintessential antihero, a loner(except for companion Ben), who doesn't want to stick his neck out for others, even when he knows he is the one right man for the job. In this respect, he closely resemble's Burt Lancaster's character in "Vera Cruz", for example. Thus, Jeff not only turns down the job of marshall of Dawson, he is convinced to leave Dawson after Gannon's gang move in with clear intentions of taking over everyone's insufficiently legal gold claims, while disposing of some miners and suggesting that the rest make a hurried exit from Dawson. Even Ronda suggests that she and Jeff make a hurried exit from Dawson while they are still alive. Then, Jeff has a sudden change of heart, apparently still nursing desire for revenge for the shooting of Ben and himself. He changes from anti-hero to hero in leading the expulsion of Gannon's gang from Dawson. In this respect, he differs from Lancaster's character, who never reforms(But is Jeff truly changed, or just handing out revenge for wrongs committed against his own interests?)

The main problem I see with the plot is the 2 principle women. Clearly, Ronda is groomed as the right woman to tame Jeff. Although she is clearly characterized as a "bad" girl, Jeff has a checkered recent past himself, having shot at least 5 men in the US or Yukon, and having stolen his cattle back from Gannon. Ironically, soon after Jeff changes from anti-hero to hero, Rhonda makes a similar change in running into the street to warn Jeff of Gannon's impending ambush. She dies as a result and Jeff asks her why she didn't just look out for herself(his supposedly just abandoned creed!).

It's clear that Corine Calvert, as Renee, just doesn't make a credible substitute for the dead Ronda, in Jeff's mind. Yet, the apparent implication of the parting scene is that they get together, even though Jeff never visibly gives her a kiss or hug. Her image as a good, if naive, young woman is somewhat compromised by her job in Rhonda's saloon of bumping miners weighting their gold dust, pushing the spilled dust on the floor and recovering it later. I'm also very unclear about her relationship with Rube Morris, a middle aged miner who followers her around and works a claim with her.(He's not her father).

Another problem is the amateurish handling of the gun fight between Jeff and Gannon's gang. If Gannon had any skill at all with a pistol, he should have killed or seriously wounded Jeff under that boardwalk, before Jeff did the same to him. And how did Jeff's badly shot up right hand suddenly become well enough to shoot a pistol with apparent ease? I also wonder what Jeff and friends did to help save the avalanche victims. They were much too far away to pull them out alive from under the snow. And why weren't most of Ronda's pack horses and mules also buried by the avalanche?

You will see a host of probably nameless but familiar faces among the miners and Gannon's gang. The sequences shot in the Canadian Rockies provide a breathtaking backdrop to the action. All-in-all, a very entertaining western, with most of the major flaws concentrated at the end. No doubt, this film takes some great liberties with history and geography, especially, the part taking place in the Canadian Yukon, which was in fact much tamer than the US Skagway.