Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Wonderful actors.

Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: One of my all-time favorite so-laughably-lousy-that-it's-totally-lovable el cheapo and stinko nickel'n'dime independent horror creature features, an enjoyably dreadful marvel that was released by the formidably fecund exploitation outfit Crown International Pictures so it could play numerous crappy double bills at countless drive-ins back in the 70's and eventually wound up being rerun like crazy on several small-time secondary cable stations throughout the 80's. I naturally first saw this gloriously ghastly abomination on late-night television one fateful Saturday evening while in my early teens and have had a deep-seated, albeit completely irrational abiding fondness for it ever since.

A meteorite falls out of the sky and crashes into the still waters of a tranquil country lake, thereby causing a heretofore dormant dinosaur egg to hatch. Of course, the baby dino immediately grows into a gigantic waddling, grunting, teeth-gnashing prehistoric behemoth with goofy flippers, an extended neck and a huge mouth full of little sharp, jagged, stalagmite-like chompers. Our Southern-fried male cousin to the Loch Ness Monster promptly starts chowing down on various luckless local yokel residents of a previously quiet and sleepy hillbilly resort town. It's up to drippy stalwart sheriff Richard Cardella, assisted by the painfully idiotic hayseed comic relief brotherly fishing guide duo of Glenn Roberts and Mark Seigel, feisty gal pal Kacey Cobb and terminally insipid nerdy scientist Bob Hyman, to get to the bottom of things before the over-sized gluttonous Jurassic throwback ruins the tourist trade by eating all the campers and fisherman that the hick hamlet makes its cash off of.

Director/co-screenwriter William R. Stromberg displays a wonderfully woeful and thoroughly clueless incompetence when it comes to pacing, atmosphere, taut narrative construction and especially eliciting sound, credible acting from his hopelessly all-thumbs rank amateur community theater level cast. The performances are uniformly abysmal: Cardella is way too bland and wooden to cut it as a solid heroic lead while the pitifully dopey redneck comic antics of Roberts and Seigel provoke groans of slack-jawed disbelief -- you aren't laughing with these two atrociously mugging clods so much as at them, particularly when the insufferable imbeciles discover a severed head bobbing up and down in the murky lake water. Better yet, a clumsily integrated sub-plot concerning a vicious on-the-loose criminal leads to a spectacularly ham-fisted supermarket hold-up scene which degenerates into a hilariously stupid mini-massacre when a young lady shopper interrupts the stick-up artist in mid-robbery! A subsequent car chase is likewise severely bungled as well; it's so limply staged and unimpressive that one feels more relieved than scared when the monster abruptly pops up to devour the nefarious fugitive. Moreover, David Allen's funky herky-jerky stop motion animation dinosaur is the authentic gnarly article, projecting a certain raw charisma, sneaky reptilian personality and overall forceful screen presence which makes all the horrendously underwhelming human characters seem like pathetically unbecoming nobody bores in comparison. And as for the rousing conclusion where the sheriff takes on our slavering beastie with a bulldozer, the operative word for this thrilling confrontation is boffo all the way.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie "comes together" in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.

Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.

It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This movie was more of a passage into manhood for one gay man, and how he must deal with everyone. His mother is depressed, his younger sister is a pain, his older sister is somewhat accepting. The relationship looks good with his boyfriend/exhooker and he leaves his family to try life with this first guy. Unfortunately, the new guy screws around on him and says it really didn't mean anything. Our young gay man goes bonkers and ends up in the looney bin and eventually leaves, dumping his new lover and starting over. We are left with him starting over and viewing, not participating, in happiness. So maybe things will go better for him in the future. The ending was kind of a downer but the whole movie was entirely realistic and so I will let this real ending slip bye with a high rating.