Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: When its DVD was released i came to market and bought it. And i think my money was on right way as i expected before buying it. Awesome movie what else i can say for Will Smith, He's been an awesome actor like always whether in actions movies or serious. Always he gives a record braking performance. I think this is the movie after August Rush which makes a person cry while watching it. The way the director described the story was really awesome. His previous life and his new life in movie was correctly elaborated to the audience. Even i could not find any fault in the story or the way they shoot it. I think its DVD should be a household because this will be really a nice thing for your collection. It is not the movie which needs pop-corns for enjoyment, this is the movie which let the audience learn a lesson. now what is the lesson you can see that while watching. And i advise those people who are movie critics please watch this if you could find any criticism about this movie then please talk to me.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.

The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.

Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting.

Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact.

Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up.

The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing.

It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie.

The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.