Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.

The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.

While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.

It was a complete waste of my time.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Although this seems to be quite an old show (2002), I watched my first ever episode last night and I have to say it has to be the worst show . . . ever.

I am not one for placing comments but I was so shocked that a show could exist that blatantly tries to pander to, and I am only assuming that this was their target audience, children under 12 years old or people with a less than average IQ.

The episode I was subjected to last night contained so many disjointed story lines, tried to include EVERY possible plot summary imaginable and all the while trying to preach about friendship, family, religion and politics !!!.

Basic story that they covered in the episode: Frat House hazing gone wrong wrong with too much alcohol - Death Turns out to be Senators son who wants FBI to investigate. Death is actually murder by peanut allergy Senator thinks it could be his sworn enemy and childhood best friend who did this because Senator was taking money for his votes for legislation but eventually got a conscience and said 'no' to mean mulit millionaire. Everybody a suspect but all have the usual alibi (ex-girlfriend student shagging a married teacher so had to lie, disgruntled student who was reported by victim actually had life changing experience, Senators enemy did not pay desperate student to kill sworn enemies son, he gives money freely to lots of broke students). All the while the heroine of this dribble has her niece staying who is 'at that age' and has a crush on a boy, who she eventually gets the courage to talk to with the assistance of her aunty, but only to dump him because the 'in' girls says he is not good enough and so to keep in with them she dumps him. Don't worry, she gets back with boy after she learns the truth about life and the 'in' girls drop her, Aunty also explains that God is the only one who truly she can rely on (I was almost sick at this point).

This 'drama' gets even better when Sue and her FBI team find out who the killer is . . . your gonna laugh at this, i sure did . . .

It is one of the Frat boys who only a year ago found out he was adopted and that his real dad is an International terrorist and he is trying to impressive real daddy by killing boy and planting bomb at funeral . . . . . . .

The characters are cardboard the acting is cardboard the continuity is cardboard the story is cardboard Anybody who says that they love this show has cardboard for a brain

Why the writers of this show have tried to pack in EVERY eventuality into the one show means that they obviously have no faith in the character development or actors capability to carry off a simple plot line. Watching this show is like watching 'Last Action Hero' with Arnie killing 5'000 people with a tooth pick, except Arnie is a better actor (wow, never thought there would be a day that i would say that !!)

In the words of the Simpsons beloved character 'comic book guy' . . . .

WORST TV SHOW . . . . . EVER.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"?

I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.

The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially cliched - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.

What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...

This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..

I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-

This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.

Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.

And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.

What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.

I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.

1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs.

Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!