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

A: The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.

The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Where oh where to begin in describing the comprehensive wretchedness of Neil LaBute's latest attempt at film making?

There are many kinds of film fans out there, but by far the most annoying and shallow is Mr. Intriguing. You know Mr. Intriguing, don't you?

He's the fellow that no matter how stupid, lame, and incomprehensibly dull a film is, he says "Gee, I don't know why everyone hated it, I found it intriguing." He's the kind of guy who finds the scent of dog poop intriguing. Especially when he smears it in the shape of a Hitler mustache on his upper lip and marches about the house ranting about the brilliance of science fiction that features thinly veiled references to Greek mythology. He's also the guy this version of The Wicker Man was made for. No one else could stand it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I never watch them.

Let me tell you about my experience...

The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and her friends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.

...I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better than this...movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good...we actually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me...I have a problem with ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it was just other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.

After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, a movie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was not scary, and not stupid so it would be funny...it was just boring. It wasn't terrible like "Baby Genuises" terrible, it was terrible like...not entertaining at all. Avoid.

Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industry these days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and not scary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is too bloody or too disgusting for people.

You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See "The Grudge." Avoid this movie like the plague...because it may literally bore you to death.

0/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Chris and Andre are two average, ordinary teens. Misunderstood by some and picked on by others. But together they stand and all will pay. Together they form "The Army of Two". They scheme and plan "Zero Day". That day is when they decide to storm their high school and inevitably murder 14 people in cold blood. Told through the tapes that they made "Zero Day", it is barely a fictionalized telling of the Columbine tragedy.

"Zero Day" is one of those movies that will mess with your head afterwards. The two main actors (Calvin Robertson and Andre Keuck) do such a good job that their characters seem like almost any disenfranchised teen walking the street. Their performances were very believable, you kinda liked these guys and that was scary. Shot on video almost totally from the teen's perspectives "Zero Day" feels very real and authentic, like you are right there. These kids try to rationalize their actions to the viewer and the actors sell it to you. But be warned it does follow the tragedy from beginning to end and the ending makes be shocking and uneasy for some.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.

Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers.

(Possible spoiler warning)

The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic "caveman meets fluffball" yarn, where a "charming" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's "wit" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance.

I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it.

In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive!

Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10