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

Answer: Plot Synopsis: Hong Kong, 1966. Paul Wagner, the man who built the Victoria Tunnel, is murdered along with his wife by his associates. His twin sons, Chad & Alex, are split apart. 25 years later, Chad, a karate instructor in Los Angeles, & Alex, a smuggler living in Hong Kong, join forces to avenge their parents' murder & rightfully claim the tunnel.

This is the second time that Jean-Claude Van Damme & Sheldon Lettich have worked together, having previously done "Lionheart". This is also the first of three films to feature Van Damme playing dual roles ("Maximum Risk" & "Replicant" are the others). The plot is a very simplistic take on the revenge story, the film's sole redeeming feature being Van Damme's performance as two very different people the prissy rich kid & the rough-&-tumble, cigar chomping tough guy. As it goes, Van Damme doesn't do a very good job in either role, although his take on Alex is mildly amusing. It is puzzling as to have the brothers mistaken for each other, with them wearing different clothes & having different hairstyles. Bolo Yeung makes a very worthy henchman for the baddies.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a "therapy" for me with a personal experience of my own.

A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he "missed the ball" and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, "if only I'd hit that ball" and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.

It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were "all that." I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.

Through the years, even now sometimes, I think "If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights." Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.

The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I do have the 'guts' to inform you to please stay away from 'Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. 'Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful 'dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery 'brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life 'Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Rented the movie as a joke. My friends and I had so much fun laughing at it that I went and found a used copy and bought it for myself. Now when all my friends are looking for a funny movie I give them Sasquatch Hunters. It needs to be said though there is a rule that was made that made the movie that much better. No talking is allowed while the movie is on unless the words are Sasquatch repeated in a chant. I loved the credit at the end of the movie as well. "Thanks for the Jeep, Tom!" Whoever Tom is I say thank you because without your Jeep the movie may not have been made. In short a great movie if you are looking for something to laugh at. If you want a good movie maybe look for something else but if you don't mind a laugh at the expense of a man in a monkey suit grab yourself a copy.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read "The Devil and Daniel Webster" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.

The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.

All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.