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

A: A great movie. Lansbury and Tomlinson are perfect, the songs are wonderful, the dances, with a particular mention for the "Portobello Ballet" are gorgeous. As for the animated section, the match between animals has become an instant classic; the climax with the attack of the armatures is chilling and fascinating. I recommend to see the restored 134 minutes version or at least the 112 minutes video. Here in Italy we have only the 98 minutes version, although the film was presented in its original release at the running of 117 minutes. If possible, watch also the German videocassette: it was generated from the 98 minutes running but it's missing of every refer to World War II and of all the scenes between English people and their Nazi invaders!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: A study in bad. Bad acting, bad music, bad screenplay, bad editing, bad direction and a bad idea. Pieces of schlock don't come any cheesier or unintentionally funnier than this... thing. By the end of the "movie", you are left wondering why did they bother in the first place. Poor Malcolm McDowell, was he short of cash or something? Still thinking of seeing this? *SPOILERS AHOY*: If you haven't died of laughter in the first thirty minutes, by the time you'll see the cyborg-populated town named "Cytown", you will. Avoid this, my movie-loving friends. Avoid.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.

Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.

What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Creteil, CEGID