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

A: I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show.

Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes.

The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.

Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple.

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

A: Prof. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) discovers Radium X--a powerful force to be used for atomic power. Unfortunately Rukh has been contaminated by the Radium and starts to glow in the dark--and his touch causes instant death. Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi) develops an antidote--but Rukh starts to go mad due to the Radium AND the antidote and sets out to kill all he believed wronged him.

The plot is silly and the "effects" that make Karloff glow in the dark are laughable, but this is still a fun little chiller. It moves quickly, has some great atmosphere (notice Rukh's "house" and the movie starts on a dark and rainy night) and Karloff and Lugosi (as always) give great performances. There is also good acting by Franic Drake (as Rukh's wife) and Violet Kemble Cooper (as his mother). So it's OK but just a notch below all the other Karloff/Lugosi movies. The plot is just too far-fetched for me to swallow. Still I did like this. I give it a 7.

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

A:
Basically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.

Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliche, about family problems, jealousy from the elder "brother", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a "happy family". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.

I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliche, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliche from boring to abhorrent.

Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the "brother". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.

On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a "sibling". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring cliches which don't even match with anything else.