Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: OK, I overrated it just a bit to offset at least one of those grumpy reviews. But I did enjoy it. I didn't laugh out loud, but it held my interest and pulled me along without dropping me at any point. The story built. Yeah, you knew it would have an happy ending--this genre always does. Meantime, it was quirky with sight gags you could miss, so pay attention when you watch. Stiller and Black delivered expertly yet again. Good team. They should work together more. Don't know that it will be a cult classic, but it was certainly a fun ride. Not as good as WHAT ABOUT BOB, or DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS but what is? It is still worth going out of your way a little to get and watch this movie.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.

I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.

It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)

The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.

The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.

Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.

I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.

Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliche slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.

Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).

To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!

Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If this film was a comedy, I would have given it a 10. Oh my, where do I begin? Put it this way -- I've seen lots of terrible horror films, but this one makes Troll 2 look like freakin' Saving Private Ryan. It's as if a group of porn filmmakers decided to make a horror film, changed their mind in midproduction and decided to do a comedy, then went back to horror, and then decided that they should have just stuck with porno (softcore at that). Everything about this film is simply terrible: the musical score (someone shoot the guy who invented the Yamaha keyboard), the script, the directing, the cinematography, the acting. There simply are no words to describe this. Oh wait, yes there are: Holy $*%!.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: a movie about the cruelty of this world. I found it liberating, as only truth can be. It also contains some quite funny bits. Some of the acting is extraordinary, see Maria Hofstatter for instance. The director has tried to depict life as realistically as possible, succeeding. Coherently, the sex scenes are explicit and no more fake than those of a hard-core movie. Although I hardly understood a sentence, I found the vision of the movie in the original language with subtitles much more rewarding, because with the dubbing half the great work of the actors gets lost. The voice of the character played by Maria Hofstatter is particularly hard to duplicate by a dubber.

My favorite movie
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
While essentially a remake of the original Chinese Ghost Story, this third installment has higher production values and greater subtlety in both the acting and the story. Tony Leung is particularly good. CGS III is a gorgeous, moving film.