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

A: Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A Pentagon science team seem to have perfected a serum which causes invisibility but when the lead boffin tries it out on himself he can't reverse the process. Frustrated and drunk with power, he turns psychotic in the classic H.G. Wells tradition.

This is a gleefully horrible Invisible Man story, delivered with relish by the ever-tasteful Verhoeven and Bacon as the genius-turned-loonytoon-maniac. As with much of Verhoeven's work it has a terrific unrestrained sense of Boy's-Own comic-book adventure (the secret underground lab where the scientists work is just wonderful) combined with the most horrific and depraved visuals (women in their underwear being groped and attacked by an invisible fiend, animals beaten to death, literally gallons of blood and wholesale slaughter in the last two reels). Whilst the story doesn't ring any new twists on an old idea, the CG special effects by Scott E. Anderson are eye-poppingly brilliant as we see veins and arteries, cardiovascular systems, muscles, tissue, bones and flesh all literally appear out of nowhere. In particular, a sequence where the team bring a gorilla back from the invisible state and the scene where Bacon drowns Devane in a swimming pool, are absolutely breathtaking in the detail and artistic invention of the effects. The film also has a great soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and classic horror-movie photography by Jost Vacano. The young cast are pretty much overshadowed by the movie's technical pedigree, but both Shue and Dickens are impressively out of their depth. This is a great fun nasty movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Whether this movie is propaganda or not (I firmly believe it is not), it really shows the power of Media. The importance of this documentary is not to show how good of a man Chavez is. It is really to demonstrate the way the Bolivarians saw how it happened, the Chavez way of seeing it. Although it may seem wrong and bias to support a film , I think the point of view shown in the movie is utterly legitimate. The Venezuelian people via the private media corporation of Venezuela only saw a one side perspective of the coup, the Neo-Liberal side. This movie shows us the way the Bolivarians saw it . Call it propaganda , I say it's a judgment call on your part.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.

I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.

The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.

There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).

Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.

As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success.