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

A: Believe it or not, at 12 minutes, this film (for 1912) is a full-length film. Very, very few films were longer than that back then, but that is definitely NOT what sets this odd little film apart from the rest! No, what's different is that all the actors (with the exception of one frog) are bugs...yes, bugs! This simple little domestic comedy could have looked much like productions starring the likes of Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy or Max Linder but instead this Russian production uses bugs (or, I think, models that looked just like bugs). Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy were yet to be discovered and I assume Linder was busy, so perhaps that's why they used bugs! Using stop-motion, the bugs moved and danced and fought amazingly well--and a heck of a lot more realistically than King Kong 21 years later!

The film starts with Mr. Beetle sneaking off for a good time. He goes to a bawdy club while his wife supposedly waits at home. But, unfortunately for Mr. Beetle, he is caught on camera by a local film buff. Plus, he doesn't know it but Mrs. Beetle is also carrying on with a bohemian grasshopper painter. Of course, there's a lot more to this domestic comedy than this, but the plot is age-old and very entertaining for adults and kids alike.

Weird but also very amazing and watchable.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.

Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.

In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: ...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie has everything. Emotion, power, affection, Stephane Rideau's adorable naked beach dance... It exposes the need for real inner communion and outer communication in any relationship. Just because Cedric and Mathieu are a couple who happen to be gay doesn't mean there isn't quite useful insight for anybody in it. I would probably classify it as a gay movie, but one that can be appreciated and loved by heterosexual people as well as homosexual and bisexual people. Mathieu's incapacity to handle his emotions divulges the way our society doesn't encourage us to act any differently, and that is what engenders the discord between him and Cedric. This is definitely a must-see!!!!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made.

This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.

But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poire the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.

Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poire takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.

A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?