Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I understand the jokes quite well, they just aren't good. The show is horrible. I understand it, and that's another horrible thing about it. The only cool character there EVER was on the show was that one hobo in that one episode, but then I see the other episode including that episode and the show is horrible. It's not funny, NOT funny! I don't want people to say "Only smart people get it" because if they're so smart why do they judge people they don't even know and say that they're not smart or intellectual enough to understand it? It's like saying "The sky is red" but never looking outside. But anyways, this is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen in my life, the jokes are terrible, I mean, you can understand them, they're just horrible, her controversy is very lame, her fart jokes and other jokes on bodily fluids are really dumb and usually consist of really bad acting. I'm not sure what these "smart" people see in this show, but judging others when they don't even know anything about any of us isn't exactly a smart comment.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This charmingly pleasant and tenderhearted sequel to the hugely successful "The Legend of Boggy Creek" is a follow-up in name only. Stories abound in a sleepy, self-contained fishing community of a supposedly vicious Bigfoot creature called "Big Bay Ty" that resides deep in the uninviting swamplands of Boggy Creek. Two bratty brothers and their older, more sensible tomboy sister (a sweetly feisty performance by cute, pigtailed future "Different Strokes" sitcom star Dana Plato) go venturing into the treacherous marsh to check out if the creature of local legend may be in fact a real live being. The trio get hopelessly lost in a fierce storm and the furry, bear-like, humongous, but very gentle and benevolent Sasquatch comes to the kids' rescue.

Tom Moore's casual, no-frills direction relates this simple story at a leisurely pace, astutely capturing the workaday minutiae of the rural town in compellingly exact detail, drawing the assorted country characters with great warmth and affection, and thankfully developing the sentiment in an organic, restrained, unforced manner that never degenerates into sticky-sappy mush. The adorable Dawn Wells (Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island") gives an engagingly plucky portrayal of the kids' loving working class single mom while Jim Wilson and John Hofeus offer enjoyably irascible support as a couple of squabbling ol' hayseed curmudgeonly coots. Robert Bethard's capable, sunny cinematography displays the woodsy setting in all its sumptuously tranquil, achingly pure and fragile untouched by civilization splendor. Darrell Deck's score adeptly blends flesh-crawling synthesizer shudders and jubilant banjo-pluckin' country bluegrass into a tuneful sonic brew. In addition, this picture warrants special praise for the way it uncannily predicts the 90's kiddie feature Bigfoot vogue by a good 15-odd years in advance.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Just plain good old stupid.

I mean really stupid, not the good stupid like Killer Tomatoes, or Ed Wood movies, this is probably the most stupid movie I ever have seen. To give this movie an golden Turkey is an insult to turkeys. To call this movie dumb is offensive even to dumb people.

If this is the future of American cinema and art we are better off to really start world war 3 and 4 at the same time and let the cockroaches run the show after.

Now I have to get drunk to wash this insult to my single braincell off....

This is a really good movie if you are suicidal.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)

I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?