Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I never had an inkling while watching the movie that it was meant for the idiot box. I always thought that this was some very good successful movie of the late 90's. But after I saw on the internet that this was meant for the TV, I was shocked because for a television film, it is absolutely fantastic!

The thing that mostly concerned me was the length. I felt that the one on one battle scene should've been removed as it was completely unnecessary. Also, it began to drag towards the end as it seemed as if the adventure was never going to end.

On the plus side, there is a strong, very interesting and captivating plot with magnificent performances by everyone. I just felt that Patrik Frayze looked a bit haggard. I also felt that Gogool, who looked dementing turned a bit stupid at some scenes.

I was delighted by the beautiful landscapes of Africa. Also, the first half of the movie would have made me give this movie a 9. Still, its a great film for the television. 8 out of 10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."

Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.

What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.

I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: is seismic activity with little or negligible results on the surface. So in that respect, IMDb's average voting score is spot on.

A Spanish film made in the USA with third or fourth rate actors giving a kind of "Falcon Crest" dimension to the whole affair is a wonderful way to waste your time, as well as wasting the money of those who backed the project financially.

The slugs involved are originals from Asturias, northern Spain, but as they were not allowed into the United States, plastic ones had to be made. However, chopping them up in the lettuce being used for making the evening dinner-time salad contrasts rather weirdly with Parisienne music as well as a rather tatty array of other US forgotten hits (or misses if you have no idea who was responsible for composing it). The actors involved were also a rather tatty array, just suitable for a low-budget film which might be categorised as horrific, horrifying, horrible or just simple awful.

As a result, the outcome is negligible on the surface, undetected underground, and about as attractive as Chapter 17,000 of Coronation Street or the latest news from Baghdad.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.

Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy.