An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: There's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.

Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.

The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...

After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.

Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.

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

Answer: Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other "science fiction" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is an extremely funny and heartwarming story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.

This is positively the best work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is immediately innovative, and his sales techniques will definitely make you laugh.

The little girl in this movie is so sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't miss the first five minutes of the movie!

Such great family entertainment is so rare these days. If you go for slightly corny pictures with happy endings,go for this one! I could watch this over and over, and I often do! My only complaint about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The movie starts out fine. Widower out with new girlfriend and the children.

The movie is filled with stupid director's choices. Like "lets separate." "I am coming down to...." do what? Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Please do not waste your time hoping that it will get better.............. Not hardly.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.

The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.

I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.

First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.

Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.

Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.

Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying.