Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I'm a big fan of the old westerns, and do not believe that Hollywood is capable of capturing its old glory. But not even Ronda Fleming and Stewart Granger can help this 1957 movie which carries nearly all the trite characteristics of westerns of the reformed gunfighter turned good guy. fallen but virtuous woman, bigoted townspeople who must turn to gunfighter for salvation, etc. I can't help but notice the last names of the writer and young "actor" who plays Granger's son. Any nepotism there? I've seen better acting in high school plays. Chill Wills plays a cartoon characterization of Chill Wills. Have I reached the 1000 words yet?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: 1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I was very interested to see this movie when it first came out in the theaters, however, I wasn't able to get around to it. So, finally, it hit the shelves, and I picked it up. Not knowing exactly what to expect, I plopped the dvd in the player, settled in the for an evening of murder, and pressed play. What followed was one of the more engaging flicks I've seen in the last couple years.

*SOME SPOILERS*

This is the story of the Wonderland murders, which led to the seediest parts of LA and straight to the biggest porn start of the 70's, John Holmes (Val Kilmer).

I was hooked from the beginning, and the feel of the movie held me all the way until the very bloody end. I was surprised to find that the movie focused less on the actual murders and more on the events before and the investigation after. Aside from a few blood splattered walls in the beginning, and the actual showing of the murders towards the end, the movie was more or less an engaging show of great dialoge and great acting. Val Kilmer all but sells me as a junkie porn star, and even the "beautiful but that's it" Bosworth was a joy to watch (and just for her looks, mind you)

I personally felt the best aspect of the movie was, as I mentioned, its lack of outright showing the murders. It was shown in a very dark atmosphere, so you couldn't completely see the brutal bludgeoning bestowed apon the sleeping foursome. Furthermore, the sound effects of said murders were more than enough to whet my appetite. They were being beating with lead pipes, there's not much more that needs to be said.

My only real problem was Carrie Fisher's brief appearence. Her portrayal of the overly-religious figure was, I think, a bit too cliche of her appearence. Maybe that person was actually part of the story, maybe not, but I wasn't sold, and for some reason, Fisher seemed a bit too "akward" in her portrayal.

Overall, an excellent movie worth the watch, even if once!

***8/10***
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
The Sensuous Nurse (1975) was a Italian sexual comedy that starred the one time Bond girl Ursula Andress. Man was she hot in this movie.. She was stacked and built like a *@#% brick house. Ursula was smoking hot in this movie. I have never seen a nurse's outfit that filled out before.

Ms. Andress stars as a nurse who is hired to take care of a rich elderly man. Even one in the house seems to be knocking the boots. One night, the nurse decides to take the grandson's temperature and give some needed T.L.C. to her ancient client. The old man takes to his nurse and this angers the rest of the family. What kind of job did the family hire her out to do? Will the geezer fall for her car giver? How can she deal with the octogenarian crone and the rest of the family? To find out you need to find a copy of the SENSUOUS NURSE!! Italian but badly dubbed into English.

Highly recommended.