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

A: "Steve"(Chris Hoffman)gathers a group from high school for a reunion at the cabin location where his twin brother Wes went missing. While they are there, a reptilian creature in the shape of a man(reminded me a lot of the Gillman from CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON)awaits in the wilderness choosing the right time to pick them apart one by one. A biker, Ellen Ripley-type time female bad-ass, Kat(Chase Masterson)has an underground military bunker she practices experiments in, while it also serves as a place of safety from the thing on the bloody rampage. Kat knows more than she's telling(she also suffered the loss of a child), but there's another novelty twist most of the group have no idea of. This creature might just be more human than they realize..and it's former identity might shed some light on a deception only one other person has been hiding since Wes' death. Kat holds the key to many of the mysteries that unlock as the group remains near the cabin.

Thankfully, a large portion of the film stays away from the creature which leaps in the air while we also see a hazy screen when we look through it's eyes. The film has Dawson's Creek-type melodramatics which often hinder any real tension that needs to build in a little monster movie. The direction is very bland leading to a relatively dull experience instead of eliciting scares. The cast is rather life-less and uninteresting. Pretty Maggie Grace(THE FOG remake) might be the only draw for this film.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: 2 stars, and I'm being generous. (minor spoilers) Look, this is a low budget zombie movie set in gangland Oakland. As the plot goes, a scientist wants to bring his dead brother back to life after being killed in a drive-by.

The main problem with this movie: what zombies?! All the "zombies" do is growl (which doesn't sound even remotely scary) and drip fake red blood from their mouths! No scary eyes, no decaying flesh, just a bunch of people growling pathetically and running around like idiots.

The cover is also misleading. There are only about 6 zombies in the whole film, so it's not like the whole "hood" is plagued with zombies or anything, it's just a few, and is contained in no time.

The acting actually is so bad it's hilarious. No one can act at all in this movie (except maybe one of the gang members) and it really seems like a bunch of friends got together, decided to cast their family, and made a movie one weekend.

Final note: since when do Doctors wear tracksuits?! Skip this one, please!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: An occasionally surrealistic thriller that will push most people's buttons., the 4th Man is sure to offend anyone with a taste for the politically correct. The story's protagonist is a bisexual alcoholic Catholic writer, Gerard (Krabbe), with a seriously twisted sense of imagination. Verhoeven offers up

Gerard has an example of everything wrong with the modern man. He's shiftless, delusional, unable to control his urges, afraid to commit to

meaningful relationships, and utterly apathetic about life in general. As the character himself states at one point, he is a professional liar, unable to recall the truth.

The movie opens with Gerard dreaming of spiders consuming Christ, and then waking to begin the long march to his own destruction. He chases off

one man (a boyfriend presumably), then chases another at a train station. Later, at a lecture, he meets a woman who seems to want to help him, or

perhaps she has more nefarious plans.. She quickly captures Gerard in her web, enticing him with sex and money, having plenty of both. She's also got

secrets, like three dead husbands. Is she lonely, and genuinely looking for someone to nurture - or is she a deadly black widow, luring Gerard to his

death? Will Garard be the 4th man she kills? The woman is Christine (Soutendijk), and Verhoeven does his best to keep you guessing what she's up to.

This is an interesting movie, with a lot of sex and intrigue. It's similar to Verhoeven's<em>Basic instinct</em>, but has a lot more depth, and is certainly more shocking. There's a lot of very strong gay content, which may make some viewers squirm. Highly recommended for fans of intelligent

psychological thrillers, or anyone looking for something entirely new.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: "Cavemen" exceeded my expectations, and not in a good way. It was even worse than I thought it would be. Basically, here's the show: The Cavemen are an alternate race, they face prejudice, etc. Quite possibly the stupidest idea ever created; almost being worthy of jail time for the writers. One show featured the cavemen going into a club, trying to pick up girls, and then nothing else happened. It was reminiscent of listening to a 22 minute Andy Rooney dialog, followed by death by steak knives via midget cannibals. For those who have not seen this show, here's an example of the dialog: "You're sure you're okay with going out with a caveman." "Yeah, that's fine. I've had like 10 - thousand!" Hilarious... Possibly the best writing I've ever witnessed.

22 minutes of cavemen with horrible makeup, tackling tough social issues... Sounds like an entertaining night. I also love how bad the recent ideas are that they're resorted to making a sitcom out of car insurance commercials. I wonder if they'll do the Gecko next, so that I can have a new title for the worst show I've ever seen. I would even say that this is worse than "Viva Laughlin." At least "Viva Laughlin" was ripped off from something that was somewhat inspired.

Shows like this make me hope that there's a comet up there somewhere aimed for Earth.

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

A: This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore.

Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.

This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays.

Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?

The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.