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

A: We have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some..."Brain-Drain" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Go, Igor, go, you are the proof that Slovenian films may, should and must be different. There's soul in it, and this is rare. Don't let anybody put you down!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I can tell you just how bad this movie is. I was in the movie and I haven't seen it yet, but I cringe at the thought of anyone actually paying to see me drunk. Especially considering what we did that year. The thing is that they probably over edited it. Especially the scene where my roommate was snorting coke of the tits of a Mexican prostitute (they probably should have followed him around). We made a few come and go appearances but aside from that I can't really remember anything. I was the MC in a few scenes (from what I'm told. What I can tell you is that everyone avoided the camera crew since who wants to be remembered as the guy who threw up or the girl who showed her tits to the world (or the girl that loser lost his virginity to). Overall the trip itself was crazy but people act different once the camera is on them.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This two-part TV mini-series isn't as good as the original from 1966 but it's solid. The original benefited from a huge number of things---it was all in black and white, it had a great jazz score and it was filmed at the real locations, including the home of the doomed Clutter family. That was important because in the book and in the original movie the home is very much a character itself.

This remake was filmed in Canada which I guess doubles okay for Kansas. The story tries to be as sympathetic to Perry as it dares to and Eric Roberts plays him as a somewhat fey person, his homosexuality barely hidden. The gentler take by Roberts doesn't quite work in the end though because it's hard to believe that his version of Perry Smith would just finally explode in a spasm of murder. Whereas Robert Blake's take on Smith left you no doubt that his Perry Smith was an extremely dangerous character.

Anthony Edwards was excellent as the bombastic, big-mouthed and ultimately cowardly Dick Hickcock, the brains of the outfit. His performance compares very well to Scott Wilson's role in the original movie.

Since this is a longer movie it allows more time to develop the Clutter family and in this regard I think the 1996 movie has an advantage. The Clutters are just an outstanding, decent family. They've never harmed another soul and it is just inexplicable that such a decent family is ultimately massacred in such a horrifying way. It still boggles my mind that, after the Clutters were locked in the bathroom, that Herb Clutter didn't force out the window so at least his children would have a chance to escape. This movie has the thought occur to him, but too late. From what I read about the real home, which is still standing, the way the bathroom is configured they could've opened the counter drawers and effectively barricaded the door which would've forced the killers to blast their way in. But it might've bought time for some of the Clutters to escape. Why the Clutters didn't try this, I have no idea.

Fans of the book will recognize that this movie takes a lot of liberties with how the crime is committed but not too serious. Still, it's distracting to viewers like me who have read tons about the case. The actors playing the cops, led by Sam Neill and Leo Rossi, are uniformly excellent, much better, I think, as a group, than the actors in the original movie. They know that to secure the noose around the necks of both of them they have to get them to confess. And the officers come to the interview impeccably prepared. They had already discovered the likely alibi the phony story of going to Fort Scott, and had debunked every jot of it. The officers then let Smith & Hickcock just walk into their trap. Hickcock is a b.s. artist who figures he can convince anyone of anything and the officers respectfully let him tell his cover story. But when they lower the boom on him, he shatters very quickly. It's very well filmed and acted and very gratifying to watch because the viewer naturally should loath Hickcock in particular by this point, a cowardly con-man who needs the easily manipulated Smith to do his killing for him. Supposedly Hickcock later stated that the real reason for the crime wasn't to steal money from the Clutters but to rape Nancy Clutter. At least she was spared that degradation.

The actors playing the Clutters are very good, Kevin Tighe as Herb Clutter in particular. The story sensitively deals with Mrs. Clutter's emotional problems, most likely clinical depression, and Mrs. Clutter displays remarkable inner strength when she firmly and strongly demands that the killers leave her daughter alone. From what I've read the Clutters' surviving family was particularly bothered by how Bonnie Clutter was portrayed in the book, claiming it was entirely untrue. But as an aside, both of the killers related to the police how Mr. Clutter asked them to not bother his wife because of her long illness. Capote might make up that fiction to make the character of Bonnie more interesting but certainly the killers had no reason to falsely portray Mrs. Clutter and no doubt much of the conversation in the book (duplicated in the movies) is right off the taped confessions of the killers. So it would've been nonsensical for Herb to have said that and not have it be true.