Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I gave this movie such a high mark because it was really cute, really funny, all while being unpretentious. I went to see this film when it was playing in the Philly area, and it was the centerpiece of a great night out with friends. The film is well written and well acted, and though it does feel a bit like a sitcom rather then a movie, that doesn't take away from the film. You just don't find comedies like this anymore, where you don't have to shock people to be funny. The film centers around a Ukranian housekeeper that finds herself working for a young couple in need of help. Though at first she helps, soon she adds more craziness to their lives then the couple bargained for. Things get further and further out of control until....you'll have to see! The banter had me laughing, even after leaving the theater. This film just put me in a good mood. I can't wait until it is released on DVD because I want this movie in my collection.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What is this?! Is it a comedy, a horror movie or just nothing?? This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Especially the scene in romania when he becomes the werewolf, that must be the worst scene that has ever been made. This movie isn't funny, it isn't scary and not entertaining at all. Please do yourself (and me, i don't think anyone should suffer through this movie) a favour and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you get is a present, just throw it away and chop it in to pieces.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.

But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?

Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.

He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history?

He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Excellent political thriller, played much quieter and slower than other, higher ranking films in this genre. When people talk about Pacino and Cusack how do they manage to skip over these amazing career topping performances? A story of friendships, father-son relationships, corruption and deceit. The two actors gel amazingly well together, and the supports from Aiello and Fonda are equally as impressive, although Aiello is brilliant, especially when the papers run to press. Instead of focussing on an over complex corruption scandal, it creates wonderful characters who show the human side of failure an political bribery, The final scenes with each of the main characters are wonderfully written and acted.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's "arty"; and yes, it's "foreign", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.

The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.

The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.

And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move!