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

A: So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).

Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have seen this movie a while back, after ordering it for my friend, who is a big Dominic Monaghan fan. The movie itself was very interesting, though it had its positive points, which for me was the Donnie Darko kind of "wtf?" factor after the movie had ended.

Of course, with positive also come negative points. To me, the young girl in the film was incredibly good, and Dominic Monaghan did a good job as well. Unfortunately I don't have this opinion about Daniel Burke, who played Lonnie. This might just be me, and I'm not claiming to be a serious critic, in the way that I don't find myself skilled enough, but he just didn't seem convincing as an actor. But perhaps it's even more striking then, for although I am not a critic, this does get my attention.

To conclude, over all I think it's definitely a film worth watching. It's interesting, confusing, and you just should have seen it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is pretty much a low-budget, made for TV, type of movie intended to capitalize off of the success of the original. I'm a fan of b-movies, and this one might have been good had they not attached the name "Cube" to it, because as is, the director and plot of the original were better, and this movie just about ruined my taste for the entire series. The characters are annoying and cliched, there are problems with continuity, and several outright production screw-ups. The story hardly gets a chance to develop because of superfluous dialogue and suffers from that. They more or less use the same horror gimmicks over and OVER throughout the movie, and because the first one was so good, this simply turns out as a disappointment.

If this was a stand-alone b-movie, I'd probably give it about a four. The "1" rating I give it was pretty much a statement about how it utterly paled in effects and intelligence as compared to the first.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...

this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.

there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.

i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.

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

A: In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's "H.E.A.L.T.H." treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer ("The breast that feeds the baby rules the world"). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting.