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

A: How could 4 out of 16 prior voters give this movie a 10? How could more than half the prior voters give it a 7 or higher? Who is voting here? I can only assume it is primarily kids -- very young kids. The fact is that this is a bad movie in every way. The story is stupid; the acting is hard to even think of as acting; the characters are characterless; and the dialogue is terrible. I saw this one rainy afternoon on the Sci-Fi channel. In the sad event that it is ever rebroadcast, I suggest you read a book instead.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Although i am inclined to agree with the other comments made by people who have seen this movie, i am ashamed to say i rather like it. Not often can such a huge pile of 80s pap be found outside of a Wham! video, so it is most definitely worth a viewing (0.79 a night in my local store!). Watch out for the insanely obvious seams and zip on the monster's costume, the fact that the 'hero' looks a lot like Keith Chegwin and such classic lines as the following: Evil Wizard-Type Bloke: "At last we meet Kor..." Kor: "Thrilling, isn't it?"

Amazing!!I also like the fact that although the video box looks quite exciting with images of a castle surrounded by raging seas and a dangerous falcon-like bird carrying a handsome hero to safety (among other such 'interesting and engaging' suggestions of what goes on in the actual film, none of them actually happen. No, I'm not joking...there really isn't a raging sea or a ferocious bird, it's just trying to make you interested...classic in my opinion. This film gets 10 for pure entertainment value!!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.

So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.

The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.

However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.

So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I can't quite say that "Jerry Springer:Ringmaster" is the worst film I have ever seen. The film would be better off if it were, because at least the worst film I've ever seen, (Prom Night II) interested me enough for me to hate it. My only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when I looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. It had seemed much more like years. It is an endless repetition of poor people, (or what Jerry Springer seems to believe poor people are), screwing each other, hitting each other, insulting each other, and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. The plot, which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the Jerry Springer mill, advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. This makes it impossible to care what happens to them. It never mattered to me whether they got on the show, or what they said, or who slept with whom. Maybe I'm not supposed to care about them. Maybe I'm supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type-- to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. Too bad it isn't. The humor is not outrageous. It's innocuous. It's predictable. Humor has to have something behind it, some kind of painful irony or life experience, in order to function. Scatology is not wit. An example. A mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. To take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter's boyfriend. Since I was over the shock of Jerry Springer's show a long time ago, I had the same reaction I had to Andrew Dice Clay's obscene nursery rhymes; not laughter, just yawning. Lastly, I found Springer's pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. If he really were an advocate of the poor, he would bring on a single mom from Bed-Sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in New York City on $12,000 a year. Or, failing that, he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. Jerry Springer gets millions for his shows, his movie, his book and videos. His guests just get round trip air fare, hotel accommodations, and a chance to humiliate themselves. If he liked poor people so much, he'd give them at least some of the money they earn for him. It appears that Springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. Jeez, with all his fine work, you'd think he'd have earned our respect already. Anyway, the film is weak and boring. It doesn't even succeed at being offensive. If you want to have a better evening, videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.

That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.

And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...