Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Xiao Chen Zhi Chun is a great movie, not only in the year it was shot but also now. It's an art movie which is not outdated even in 21st century. The director maintained a good narrative skill and thus made the story so smooth!

The movie reminds me of the later French new wave movie: Francois Truffaut's "Femme d'a cote" which is of the similar topic.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.

Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.

The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.

Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.

I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie can be described in those 2 words "just unbelievable". This is the best movie ever made, I just cant see why this movie isnt in the top 250. I also can't see why anybody would not love Scarface. Anyways, if you havnt seen it, it is a must buy.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public.

The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.

A diverting, but not great film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
A pleasant surprise! I expected a further downgrade along the line: The Rock (9)-->Con Air (7)-->Armaggeddon (4). Especially for such an overhyped film. Perhaps that's the reason so few approved of this new type of Bruckheimer fare. Clever dialogue instead of snappy one-liners, decent background/motivation instead of shake-n-bake stereotypes and when the chase came you really thirsted for it. Fanboys expecting an Armageddon rollercoaster: stay away. This is one for the more intelligent action fans. It didn't even bother me Jolie appeared so little.