Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: i saw this movie last night and even after a couple of beers the only giggle this movie got out of me was when i realized that i was actually watching it. in a word, it is unfunny. UNfunny. i totally believe the trivia tidbit about jack black apologizing for making this garbage. i can't believe that barry levinson didn't just toss this script when he read the first page. moreover, i can't believe that i watched more than ten minutes of it.

i gave it 3 out of 10* because i love to see christopher walken make terrible movies for the paycheck. also, the horse "corky," by merely existing as a character in this movie, is actually quite ridiculous.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I was lucky enough to catch this movie while volunteering at the Maryland Film Festival. I've always been a fan of classic horror films and especially the gimmicks of William Castle, so this was definitely a must-see for me.

This is about the life and work of William Castle, who in my opinion was an underrated director. True, he made some cheap budget schlocky horror films, but he added something to these films: real live theater gimmicks that you don't see anymore. For example, he had nurses in case someone had a heart attack at his movies and put vibrators at the bottoms of chairs in THE TINGLER.

This is truly a well-made documentary and brings this rather shadowed director into the light, and celebrated his contributions to horror cinema. It also paints Castle as a larger than life character, who was very well-liked and had a smile on his face.

Unlike most film documentaries that mostly show testaments from film historians, SPINE TINGLER! shows interviews mostly from his family members and directors who were influenced by his work, such as John Waters, John Landis, and Joe Dante. A must see for classic horror and sci-fi fans.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Shame really - very rarely do I watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. I've seen quite a few of Ira Levin's adaptations - 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Stepford Wives' - and liked both them, but this just didn't appeal to me.

When I read the plot outline - an award winning playwright (Michael Caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (Christopher Reeve) and steel his script for his own success - I was excited. I like thrillers, Michael Caine's a good actor, Sidney Lumet's a good director and Ira Levin's work is generally good.

I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but all I'd say is there are LOADS of twists and turns. So many its kind of hard to explain the film's plot line in detail, without giving it away. I enjoyed the first ... 45 minutes, before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. Though I have to give Lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud.

The main cast - Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and Irene Worth - were all brilliant in their roles. Though Worth's obvious fake Russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal Irene, I think any actor's fake accent would irritate me). Not sure if Cannon's character was meant to be annoyingly funny but Dyan managed to annoy and amuse - at the same time.

Anyone reading this - I don't want you to be put-off watching this because of my views - give it a chance, you may like it, you may not. It's all about opinion.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.

But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.

It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.

Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I wasn't expecting the highest calibre of film-making with Joel Schumacher directing this one, so I was surprised that TIGERLAND wasn't a complete waste of time.

In technique, it's often derivative of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with the shaky camera work, grainy shots, the film occasionally running like it's skipping a sprocket---all those techniques Speilberg used to make his film seem more realistic but in the end was more distracting than anything else.

But unlike SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, the emotional component wasn't as weak, as the characters in this film seemed more like real people and the story less contrived, not so wrapped up in the American flag (Speilberg gets an 'F' in subtlety).

Next to the first section of Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET, this is the most realistic portrayal of boot camp that I have seen in a film, and for that I think it's worth watching.

It's not a great film, but neither is it a bad film.