Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: One: Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason, two great comics turned into saps for a bratty kid. They've both sold themselves out in this one, worse than Pryor's character. Two: Horrible, overly sentimental script that could have been used in a Harold Lloyd movie its so cliched. Three: Choice of a black actor as the toy; the racial subtext of this is unbearable, as its never addressed. There's no message here, Pryor's part could have been played by any comedic actor. Four: That kid...I wish I could go back in time and prevent him from ever acting...that would mean movies like this one and Kid Co. might not have been made...and my childhood would have been free of their mind-warping power. So if you want to watch a couple of great comics defile themselves in a sickly sweet kiddie flick, go ahead. If you want to see them in something good, see Pryor's old standup act and Gleason in something better, like the Honeymooners.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: 1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront cafe where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger.

The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Guys and Dolls has to be one of my favorite musical movies ever. It is a very fun movie to watch and nothing more. it embodies what people have forgotten about musicals-musicals were made to entertain, not to to preach. Nowadays we have Rent and Chicago which are great musicals and good movies but they fail to bring us solid entertainment with no strings attached. The only thing that bothered me in the movie was Marlon Brando, the guy can't sing! It was very annoying to listen to him sing and talk when I couldn't understand him. If it weren't for Marlon I would have given this 10 stars. Guys and Dolls provides old-fashioned entertainment that we rarely get these days. Watch it to have a good time!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.