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

A: This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.

This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As far as parody films go, there are few that are worth time and energy. but with a recent resurgence of horrid parodies such as Date Movie and The Comebacks, it is a breath of fresh air to come back and rediscover a truly funny farce like Johnny Dangerously.

After his mother has no end of medical problems, little Johnny goes to work for the mob. What fallows is a series of gags, most of which work, there are, however, the occasional flops. But a foreign gangster who can't master the American language (profanity wise, at least), a rival gangster with a penchant for shooting his mouth off (...once!), a younger brother with the D.A. who is out to get Johhny Dangerously, and a hot young starlet hot for his affections have Johnny busy.

And the viewer will be busy laughing, for the most part, as every gangster-movie cliche is skewered by a talented cast and decent writing.

Not perfect by a long shot, but definitely good for a smile on a bad day.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.

What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, "In Cold Blood" presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.

Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.

Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.

After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.

Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, "In Cold Blood" stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: It wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.

The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.

It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying "look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!" mentality of this generation of Disney. :'(
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I'm giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in IMDb rating system. this movie was horrible. It was very badly acted, the story was poorly written, the action was unbelievable. I doubt even the Salvation Army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. I won't even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn't good enough for plot spoilers. To write comments on the plot would be pointless. If I were to compare this movie, I'd have to compare it to Reign of Fire, however although I didn't like Reign of Fire either, that movie at least was better than this one.

Some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. The only reason I didn't was because I simply didn't think to do it. I was hoping for a feast of CGI and fighting masterfully done, but that isn't what happened. The martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash-back scene, very disappointing. The CGI was not done well either. One scene comes to mind. During one of the earlier tank battles, the troops are firing away at......nothing. Someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. I'm also thinking the bad guy's voice was dubbed by the voice-over of Imotep from The Mummy movies. Had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (Someone owed some royalties, here?) Since I mentioned the fight scene, I'll say yeah that might be considered a spoiler, but only to the purists I suppose.

Don't go see it, don't buy the DVD when it comes out either. You have been warned.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
"La Lupa Mannara" aka. "Werewolf Woman" of 1976 is a film with a highly promising title, but, sadly, the film itself is pretty far away from being a must-see for my fellow Italian Horror buffs. You won't hear me say that Rino Di Silvestri's film is entirely bad - it has its stylish moments, and the first half is actually great fun to watch (though the fun is unintentional). The film also profits from an exceptionally exhibitionist leading actress, Annik Borel. However, the film, which has no real plot (at least no linear one) often makes no sense at all, and it drags incredibly throughout the mostly superfluous second half.

Daniella (Annik Borel) has strange dreams about a dancing around naked in the night before turning into a Werewolf Woman. Since she was a raped as a girl, Daniella is afraid of men. Then, when her sister (cult siren Dagmar Lassander) comes to visit with her husband, Daniella suddenly feels attracted to the husband and subsequently turns into a Werewolf Woman herself... or something. The storyline really doesn't make the slightest sense, which makes the film a lot of fun to watch throughout the first half. The leading character Daniella is some schizophrenic mixture of frigid hysteric and lusty nymphomaniac, who occasionally turns into a werewolf woman. Director Di Silvestri chose to make up for the plot-holes with a lot of of female nudity, which works fine for me. There are also some pretty well-done gore moments. The film is never even slightly suspenseful or creepy, but it is very entertaining in the beginning. Also, there are no attempts to hide that this is a slice of sleaze, the camera often does close-ups on the Miss Borel's private parts for the simple heck of it. I'm not complaining. Then, for some reason, Di Silvestri chose to make the film longer by completely changing the direction in which it was going. While Daniella is, at first, a typical werewolf, who cannot help but follow the urges of her curse, this suddenly changes when she meets a guy (Howard Ross, who was in Fernando Di Leo's "Il Boss" of 1973). Suddenly, she goes back to normal again, and the subsequent part of the film does not at all go in hand with the first half. It gets pretty damn boring after a while; all things considered, it probably would have been better for this 99 minute film to be only 70 minutes long. At the end, they even want to make us believe that the absurd story (if one can call it that) is based on true events. "Werewolf Woman" has some redeeming qualities; my fellow Italo-Horror fans can give it a try. However, if you wanna watch Italian Horror/Exploitation cinema from the 70s, there are hundreds of films that you should see before seeing this one.