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

A: So i consider myself pretty big into the anime scene, with very few shows i simply WILL NOT WATCH.

this show, however, i would recommend to anyone.

Quite possibly the most Original series to date, it;s got just about everything i could ask for. A side story, so to speak, about an unconditional love that will NOT be admitted to, a very blatant comedy, and a very well put together voice acting cast (both Japanese and American translation).

If not for the terribly funny aspect to it, it would be, just another anime.

More or less, as i have noticed, a 'love it or hate it', very few people i have seen introduced to this series will end up with a distaste for it.

Original to the core, with everything you could ask for in an afternoon, bet the house on this series. I'm ready to ASSURE you that you will enjoy it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this movie today and I have to say, it was much much better than I expected it to be about couple of hours before going to see it. Personally I had some prejudice due to the language of it, but it did totally change my idea. The movie was in most cases surprisingly good with the great actor and actress performances. It was a story about a boy who had a dream and who did everything to reach it. This really touched me and as a film, which is based on a true story, it convinced me. A new school, psycho headmaster and a young boy who get known with a new teacher, a bit different one than the others and about fighting for the things even if they doesn't seem to work out. It showed how little things can make huge changes in many things, and how difference can sometimes cause difficult situations. Also I think the actor selections has succeeded perfectly. It really felt like you had been some person watching the episodes as an outsider when they happened. Before I spoil this movie with praises, I have to admit that there were some things and situations that didn't look and feel realistic..like the one where the headmaster of the school beat Frits aka. Martin in front of the class, at the end of the movie. He really got beaten badly, but the only thing that it caused to him, was some blood coming from the nose when comparing that to the first beating in the beginning, when Frits got some stitches..well I guess every movie has it own faults..have to say, that if I someday somewhere find this DVD from the store, it's sure thing, that I take it with me.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: O my gosh... Just give me a minute to breath. This movie takes you on an awesome ride and doesn't let you go until the very last blow in your face ending. This is the the movie for fans of Stormriders and such. Legend of Zu was beautifully created, although I didn't like a few things, they used alot of stand ins. I wanted to see the real person fight but, oh well... a few small let downs,and I didn't really like it a lot until I watched it again, when you understand it more it totally kicks A**! I encourage anyone who ever wanted to see a true Asian movie, to see this movie. I give this movie one of my highest ratings.Go and see it when it comes out in America!!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: First of all, this is a low-budget movie, so my expectations were incredibly low going into it. I assume most people looking at the info for this movie just wanted a bloodfest, and essentially that's all it is.

Plot? There really is none. It's basically Saw but in China and a whole hell of a lot worse. Cast? There is none, period. Special Effects? Absolutely awful in my opinion... There were cutaways and the blood was often completely unbelievable because of amounts, splatter, color, texture, etc.

I believe the purpose of this movie was supposed to be a brutal, shock film. Now it had some great potential on a bigger budget but poor scripting, poor dialogue, awful acting, what seemed like camcorder video shots, and just plain unbelievable "gore," made this movie truly awful.

There are movies worth taking a chance against some reviews, even "b-rate" movies deserve some opportunities (blood trails for example was the most recent I saw against reviews that was worth it), but this was simply awful. I hope that people considering this movie read my comment and decide against it.

I'm all for brutality and shock, but the overall unrealism and truly awful acting makes for an awful experience. Save your time/money and chance something else, you won't be disappointed.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
The traditional Western is synonymous with wide open spaces, clearcut morality, inevitable storylines, the optimistic faith in a hero's ability to shape his own destiny, to escape his past. These qualities reflect directly the American sense of self, the self-shaping Dream, the pushing of boundaries and frontiers, which is why the genre is still alluded to by opportunistic politicians. With some noble exceptions (eg Wellman, Hawks), the Western was healthily free of neuroses or real anxiety. Anthony Mann changed all that forever, and this first foray into the genre is one of the most violent, vivid, complex, not to say exciting Westerns ever made.

The traditional Western depends on a hero who exemplifies rugged wholesomeness, whatever misfortunes he may have had in the past, a supporter of order and right, who dominates the film, removes its obstacles, restores harmony in effect; and an obvious villain, who often, ironically, drives the plot, forces the hero into certain actions. The difference between the two is often delineated as mythically simple as the wearing of white or black hats.

Mann's background was in film noir, a genre antithetical to wide open spaces and optimism. Noir was neurotically charged, focusing on the dissolution of an unstable protagonist, where morality is blurred, the hero is as often the villain, trapped in an interior-labyrinth of his own making, a passive victim to destiny. Noir is about regress not progress, the interrogating and denying of modes and signs of representation, not the creation and confirmation of them.

WINCHESTER 73 is fraught with noir anxiety. Noir is often considered a psychological genre, visualising the traumas of its protagonist's head. 73 does this too, and is all the more disturbing in that that protagonist is lovely, homespun Jimmy Stewart, initiating here his great run of difficult films with Mann and Hitchcock. In many ways, good-natured and sweet, representing right and trying to restore disruptions to the natural order, he is also a near-lunatic who will stop at nothing to achieve murderous revenge, whose relentless quest mirrors Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS in its inhuman persistance, whose human instincts are frayed by this quest, and whose bursts of violence are genuinely terrifying to witness.

As in noir, his anxiety has a psychological base - unlike most 'healthy' heroes who have outgrown (symbolically killed) their fathers, McAdam's father was killed before he could complete the process; his chasing his brother is less moral revenge than an anguished protest against stunted growth. The climactic shoot-out is not cathartic: McAdam staggers back into 'normal' society, like he's just witnessed some of the world's most ghastly horrors.

What is most unsettling about the film is that it's not really about a hero or a villain at all, but an inanimate piece of weoponry that drives the action. 73 opens with the gun of the title privileged, on display behind a glass window, while its admirers are trapped, squashed, undifferentiated, framed, admiring it outside. Throughout the film, human power is reduced to the most arbitrary of signifiers - names change; Lin and Dutch mime shooting each other because they've no guns; quests lose their moral vitality and their practitioners veer close to madness; armies have to ask for help from Confederate strangers to fight battles; a man becomes worthy of respect only when he mentions his name; another man is revealed as a coward when he abandons his fiancee to the Indians; the gun retains its prestige, power, wholeness.

It's not the revenge plot which drives the film, but the story of the gun; this wrenches the film out of conventional expectations, and creates an eerie, alienating, modern feel. We become so caught up in the revenge plot that when we follow, with the gun, another plot entirely, we feel slightly bewildered.

This emphasis on the gun, symbol of potent masculinity, actually allows for a critique of that masculinity, revealing pointless elaborate rituals at the expense of society and order; brute capitalist greed; murderous Indian-traders who defraud both seller and enemy; cowards; psychotic killers; before returning to its 'true' owner, a broken hero thoroughly compromised, who has become as murderous as the murderer he seeks. The gun is never imprinted with the name of its owner, not only because there is no fixed owner, but because there is no fixed masculinity, an insight anathema to the traditional Western.

73 brilliantly invokes Western myths - Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the Cavalry, the Civil War, the wide open West - only to undermine them. Earp has an inflated reputation that is all name but never proven - Dodge City is no safer against outlaws than anywhere else; the Cavalry is inept (Custer has just lost Little Big Horn) and the bitter feud of the War is shown to be irrelevant. The myth of the open West is a site for a very closed, inescapable, circular plot which traps its characters, refuses to allow them shape their destiny, but allowing it to shape them.

The old John Ford silhouette of riders on a vast mountain is reprised, but signals here not progress but repetition and circularity. But for all its deconstruction, the film is also tangibly vivid in a way few Westerns ever achieve. Mann's incisive technique intrudes his camera in crucial positions, alternating revealing distance with intense examination, making the saloon doors and stagecoaches seem thrillingly alive and lived in.