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

Answer: This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" and Will Ferrell "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those "hip" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It took 9 years to complete this film. I would think that within those 9 years someone would have said,hey, this film is terrible. I've seen better acting in porn movies. The story is tired and played. Abused child turns into serial killer. How about something new for a change. How about abused child turns into a florist? At least that would have been a new twist. Why is it that everyone with a camera and a movie idea (especially unoriginal movie ideas) thinks that they can be a director? I do admire the fact that they stuck with this film for 9 years to get it completed. That shows tenacity and spirit. With this kind of drive hopefully next time they can focus it on a better script. If you want to see a failed experiment in indie film making from a writer/director from Michigan see Hatred of A Minute. If you want a good movie from a Michigan writer/director stick with Evil Dead.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This two-part TV mini-series isn't as good as the original from 1966 but it's solid. The original benefited from a huge number of things---it was all in black and white, it had a great jazz score and it was filmed at the real locations, including the home of the doomed Clutter family. That was important because in the book and in the original movie the home is very much a character itself.

This remake was filmed in Canada which I guess doubles okay for Kansas. The story tries to be as sympathetic to Perry as it dares to and Eric Roberts plays him as a somewhat fey person, his homosexuality barely hidden. The gentler take by Roberts doesn't quite work in the end though because it's hard to believe that his version of Perry Smith would just finally explode in a spasm of murder. Whereas Robert Blake's take on Smith left you no doubt that his Perry Smith was an extremely dangerous character.

Anthony Edwards was excellent as the bombastic, big-mouthed and ultimately cowardly Dick Hickcock, the brains of the outfit. His performance compares very well to Scott Wilson's role in the original movie.

Since this is a longer movie it allows more time to develop the Clutter family and in this regard I think the 1996 movie has an advantage. The Clutters are just an outstanding, decent family. They've never harmed another soul and it is just inexplicable that such a decent family is ultimately massacred in such a horrifying way. It still boggles my mind that, after the Clutters were locked in the bathroom, that Herb Clutter didn't force out the window so at least his children would have a chance to escape. This movie has the thought occur to him, but too late. From what I read about the real home, which is still standing, the way the bathroom is configured they could've opened the counter drawers and effectively barricaded the door which would've forced the killers to blast their way in. But it might've bought time for some of the Clutters to escape. Why the Clutters didn't try this, I have no idea.

Fans of the book will recognize that this movie takes a lot of liberties with how the crime is committed but not too serious. Still, it's distracting to viewers like me who have read tons about the case. The actors playing the cops, led by Sam Neill and Leo Rossi, are uniformly excellent, much better, I think, as a group, than the actors in the original movie. They know that to secure the noose around the necks of both of them they have to get them to confess. And the officers come to the interview impeccably prepared. They had already discovered the likely alibi the phony story of going to Fort Scott, and had debunked every jot of it. The officers then let Smith & Hickcock just walk into their trap. Hickcock is a b.s. artist who figures he can convince anyone of anything and the officers respectfully let him tell his cover story. But when they lower the boom on him, he shatters very quickly. It's very well filmed and acted and very gratifying to watch because the viewer naturally should loath Hickcock in particular by this point, a cowardly con-man who needs the easily manipulated Smith to do his killing for him. Supposedly Hickcock later stated that the real reason for the crime wasn't to steal money from the Clutters but to rape Nancy Clutter. At least she was spared that degradation.

The actors playing the Clutters are very good, Kevin Tighe as Herb Clutter in particular. The story sensitively deals with Mrs. Clutter's emotional problems, most likely clinical depression, and Mrs. Clutter displays remarkable inner strength when she firmly and strongly demands that the killers leave her daughter alone. From what I've read the Clutters' surviving family was particularly bothered by how Bonnie Clutter was portrayed in the book, claiming it was entirely untrue. But as an aside, both of the killers related to the police how Mr. Clutter asked them to not bother his wife because of her long illness. Capote might make up that fiction to make the character of Bonnie more interesting but certainly the killers had no reason to falsely portray Mrs. Clutter and no doubt much of the conversation in the book (duplicated in the movies) is right off the taped confessions of the killers. So it would've been nonsensical for Herb to have said that and not have it be true.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
After a brief prologue showing a masked man stalking and then slashing the throat of an older gentleman on a deserted, urban, turn of the century Australian street, we meet Julie (Rebecca Gibney) and Peter (John Adam) as they go out house hunting. They manage to get a loan for a fixer-upper on a posh Sydney street, but it turns out that physical disrepair is not the only problem with their new home. It just may be haunted.

13 Gantry Row combines a memorable if somewhat cliched story with good to average direction by Catherine Millar into a slightly above average shocker.

The biggest flaws seem partially due to budget, but not wholly excusable to that hurdle. A crucial problem occurs at the beginning of the film. The opening "thriller scene" features some wonky editing. Freeze frames and series of stills are used to cover up the fact that there's not much action. Suspense should be created from staging, not fancy "fix it in the mix" techniques. There is great atmosphere in the scene from the location, the lighting, the fog and such, but the camera should be slowly following the killer and the victim, cutting back and forth from one to the other as we track down the street, showing their increasing proximity. The tracking and the cuts need to be slow. The attack needed to be longer, clearer and better blocked. As it stands, the scene has a strong "made for television" feel, and a low budget one at that.

After this scene we move to the present and the flow of the film greatly improves. The story has a lot of similarities to The Amityville Horror (1979), though the budget forces a much subtler approach. Millar and scriptwriter Tony Morphett effectively create a lot of slyly creepy scenarios, often dramatic in nature instead of special effects-oriented, such as the mysterious man who arrives to take away the old slabs of iron, which had been bizarrely affixed to an interior wall.

For some horror fans, the first section of the film might be a little heavy on realist drama. At least the first half hour of the film is primarily about Julie and Peter trying to arrange financing for the house and then trying to settle in. But Morphett writes fine, intelligent dialogue. The material is done well enough that it's often as suspenseful as the more traditional thriller aspects that arise later--especially if you've gone through similar travails while trying to buy your own house.

Once they get settled and things begin to get weirder, even though the special effects often leave much to be desired, the ideas are good. The performances help create tension. There isn't an abundance of death and destruction in the film--there's more of an abundance of home repair nightmares. But neither menace is really the point.

The point is human relationships. There are a number of character arcs that are very interesting. The house exists more as a metaphor and a catalyst for stress in a romantic relationship that can make it go sour and possibly destroy it. That it's in a posh neighborhood, and that the relationship is between two successful yuppies, shows that these problems do not only afflict those who can place blame with some external woe, such as money or health problems. Peter's character evolves from a striving corporate employee with "normal" work-based friendships to someone with more desperation as he becomes subversive, scheming to attain something more liberating and meaningful. At the same time, we learn just how shallow those professional friendships can be. Julie goes through an almost literal nervous breakdown, but finally finds liberation when she liberates herself from her failing romantic relationship.

Although 13 Gantry Row never quite transcends its made-for-television clunkiness, as a TV movie, this is a pretty good one, with admirable ambitions. Anyone fond of haunted house films, psycho films or horror/thrillers with a bit more metaphorical depth should find plenty to enjoy. It certainly isn't worth spending $30 for a DVD (that was the price my local PBS station was asking for a copy of the film after they showed it (factoring in shipping and handling)), but it's worth a rental, and it's definitely worth watching for free.