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

Answer: Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.

I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.

With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.

The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.

The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.

Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.

It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Let us begin by saying that this film's English title "The Power of Kangwon Province" is an absolute misnomer.It is because in Hong Sang Soo's film,there are no actual shots of wars,troubles and conflicts.So the idea of establishing power of a province is neither suitable nor valid in the context of this film.If we were to judge this film by its Korean language title,"Kangwon-do ui him" is going to appear as a cryptic statement about emotional turmoils of its young protagonists whose minds are not at rest.Hong Sang Soo has also directed a highly prolific visual document about erratic choices made by people in their lives.The people in question are a couple of young girls who are constantly in the process of displaying their moods,whims and fancies. If making a film out of nothingness can be claimed as a film maker's meritorious virtue then Hong Sang Soo has to be saluted as a courageous film maker whose films speak volumes about ubiquitous nothingness of human relationships,sentiments and lives.Whether one likes it or not,this is the only fair conclusion that be deduced from this particular film.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .

THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later

That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.

Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out!