Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Revenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we all.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titlesyou are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.

Spoilers technically follow:

Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.

Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.

This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.

The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.

In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Go way back to page ten of this review section, and work your way back up. Go ahead; I'll wait.

Done? Well, then you've probably noticed the same trend that I have. You could nitpick all day long about the lame jokes, dated timing and obviously derivative plot points and shtick in 'Bogus', but this movie seems to be one of those 'hate me now, love me later" flicks.

Bill and Ted's biggest problem was that the original appealed to those 80's kids who followed the tends and considered themselves on the cutting edge of fashion. That worked fine for the original, but obviously bombed in 1991, when no self-unrespecting slacker would be caught dead wearing anything but flannel or admitting he liked anything about the 80's. As Ted would put it: "Dude, this is a totally deep hole. Wanna play 20 questions?"

They say nostalgia goes in 20 year cycles, and that certainly seems to be the case here. Here in 2010, those of use who grew up with Cindi Lauper and Megadeth are beginning to look back to appreciate some of those pivotal films that (like it or not) made us who we are. If you're one of those who look at 'Bogus' as if it were an outdated ("Fa gs!") ripoff, then you're missing the point and probably spent six years growing facial hair, wearing flannel and looking like you just crawled out of bed.

In self-referencing its own origins (the Star Trek episode" and and time traveling with a phone booth), B&T makes no attempt to hide its creators' love for homage. Quentin Tarantino, anyone? I'm not saying 'Bogus' is 'True Love,' but I do think it needs to be appreciated for what it is: a fun snap-shot of our society at a time before child psychology, Ritalin, anti-smoking ads, terrorist paranoia and the proliferation of media fear-mongering.

So, for all of you B&T haters out there...turn off your Screaming Trees CD, get that hair out of your face, go to the beach and lighten up. Narcissistic depression and intellectual ennui are SO corporate.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.

"Joe Millionaire", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?

I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman "reign of terror" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like "Titus", "Futurama" and "John Doe" (NBC can renew "Boomtown", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like "Joe Millionaire". They can now say "We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.

The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from "The Bachelor" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and "twist" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for "Joe" with such charming lines like "Look, you're not stupid".

I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after "Joe Millionaire" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.

Boycott FOX.