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

Answer: Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.

Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A movie/documentary about different people in Austria on the hottest weekend of the year. It follows what they are doing and maybe more what they are not doing. The tempo is very quiet......so you have to relax.......breathe in...breathe out before you see it......

First you think....but nothing is happening and you get a little angry over that..and thats the problem, because its the mood of the film and the really nice social realistic pictures which are nice in this film...........a lot of people will say its disgusting......but its not that bad...i think its more used for the marketing....and theres some really funny moments...a 60 old woman stripping.....i guarantee its the most unsexy striptease in film history......its movie which is real..i think thats the word......right up in your face.......and that makes it a bit scary.no computer manipulation here.....its real life...and as we all know movies can win over reality when it comes to doing sick things..........so its much worse in the real world.......

If you survive the movie you can start to look at your neighbors and think...maybe they are like the persons in the movie...i bet theres a lot of them out there......sick...crazy people living with a nice facade........after seing the movie i feel its more interesting to look at my neighbors........

But maybe you shouldnt see this movie on your first date.........
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.

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

Answer: Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.

This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this "what the hell" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliche visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack.