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

Answer: This was, so far, the worst movie I have seen in my entire life, and I have seen some REALLY bad movies. I saw this movie at my local video store, and the cover looked like it could be a decent horror movie. Little did I know that the cover would be the best part of the movie. Where to start? The filming of the movie was scattered and boring. At one point, there is a one-minute scene of no one talking, just a car driving to a ranch on a normal sunny day. Nothing happened, they just drove in silence. The whole movie is boring, with annoying, unbelievable dialogue and basically no plot to speak of. If you rent this movie, watch it with some friends and it might make a good comedy. Otherwise, when you see this movie, run.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: GOJOE takes a little getting used to at first, but the final result is very satisfying. The tale, about a murderous samurai who seeks to redeem himself by opposing an effeminate, but dangerous samurai, is worth more than a watch. There is a lot at stake here, from physical survival to soulful salvation. The movie may seem a bit similar to other anime-inspired Samurai film at first, but it does eventually delve into more mature/adult territory soon after.

Not to be missed. GOJOE is one of the better samurai movies to come around post-Kurosawa.

8 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the movie and reviews of other foreign films)
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.

Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.

Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Zane and Beringer will keep you on the edge of your seats. I don't typically go for military/war movies, but this was worth my time.

It was serious, but it was also humorous. Beringer's character proved to be heroic and honest. No matter what, you know that he's got your back.

Zane's character developed throughout the film. He wasn't just a suit, he definitely proved that he could be a hero and handle a gun.

The ending through me a little though. It didn't really go with the action throughout the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, nonetheless.

It's worth checking out.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: *SOILER* It's fake! The whole thing is a fake! There is no ghosts or zombies, Alan is a Lord and his cousin or brother or half brother or something like that wants the castle and his title for himself. So he invests this overly complicated and needless pointless plan ala SCOOBY-DOO to drive Alan to commit suicide. Most of the movie is him picking up redheads and attacking them. He's not even killing them. He drops off to sleep and the girl vanishes and he thinks he buried them someplace. If he looked at the so-called ghost of Evelyn, he could tell she was wearing gloves! My God what a waste of time. Don't bother watching it, renting and if you bought it and haven't watched it yet, sell it. Quickly! Do yourself a favor and stay away from THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE. I give this stinker the CRAP-O-LANTERN.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).