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

A: In what must be one of the most blood-freezing movies ever, a transvestite is murdering people in New York, and the answer to everything may not be what people suspect. One can see how Brian DePalma takes some influence from Hitchcock with camera angles and stuff. Michael Caine plays a most thought-provoking character, while Angie Dickinson is basically a bored rich woman with a bad hairdo. Keith Gordon (who later starred in "Christine") is probably the most interesting character in the movie. But you can't really understand this movie without seeing it. And after seeing it, you may never know just whom you can trust. Also starring Nancy Allen and Dennis Franz.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Frankly I don't understand why this movie has been such a big "flop" in publicity. Sharon Stone certainly has not lost any of her charisma and "touch" since "Basic instinct". I voted this film 10 and I tell you why: Game opens in London this time. London is the city where Catherine Tramell has moved since the events in BI1. Again she proves to be a mastermind manipulator of her own class -unchallenged. She is "screwing your brain" as Catherine with such a skill that in the end you don't be quite sure who is the real villain.

As for the technical part of the film: Only real setback is the B-rate crew of actors. Sharon Stone is the only really big name in the cast compared to her and Michael Douglas etc in the first part. I also think BI2 would have been better had Sharon Stone been a bit younger but she is still quite stunning in her looks and has only improved concerning her charisma. Her B-rate "assistants" are not so bad either although I would have wanted some bigger names to the cast.

I think there are quite good improvements in the basic plot. I think this is a far better thriller than many of the run-off-the-mill crap Hollywood so readily distributes these days. The plot is great, it's easy to see technically, you don't snore in the half way through the film and most important -the heath is on.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This film was really bad whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is ridiculous.

The film looks (and is) definitely cheap, the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all -she was even pretty- and they thought they needed something more impressive; they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50's, rather funny).

The film shows clearly why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was really bad at both. Same goes to the actors, leading and supporting.

"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s best achievement is its short running time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: 'Five Days' is billed as something special, a crime drama that consists of a series of episodes, each set on one particular day of a police enquiry. But in fact, this element of the story turns out to be rather less significant than might at first be thought, as the fact that the action in each episode is confined to 24 hours is hardly noticeable, and very little distinguishes the program from countless other crime stories. In fact one almost can't help drawing comparisons to the last 'Prime Suspect', as one of the sub-plots focuses on a single, cynical female cop approaching retirement: and it's not just the absence of Helen Mirren that makes the comparisons unfavourable. There's a lot of earnest over-emoting, manipulative music and a set of characters seemingly contrived so that each one is in some sense sympathetic, in another suspicious. And it's possible to guess the guilty party well before the end, not because of the internal dynamic of the story, but rather because of the construction of the drama as a whole: certain things must be true, to justify the way that the series focuses on certain characters at certain times. In spite of these failings, the series grew on me: by the end, I was quite gripped. But it's a sad sign that the BBC, which once made the likes of 'The Singing Detective', boasted of this of "possibly the best drama of the year": for there's little true originality on offer here, and the claim reveals a lack of ambition that is dreadfully disappointing. 'Five Days' is in fact not rubbish; but it is formulaic, and one would hope that the very best the BBC had to offer would be something a little more innovative and fresh.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!

Make no mistake this film is awful.

Here's a list of reasons:

Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.

Get the picture?

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

A:
Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? "I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.