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

Answer: I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is really genuine and random. It's really hard to find movies like it in bunches of movies now in Hollywood. I really enjoy watching this movie, i bought its DVD Tuesday this week and i've watched it for 4 times. I love the Spanglish accent of Paz, it s just really cute as she is. And her acting and Morgan's are so funny and natural.

My movie taste might be really different from others but i have to say i really love this movie, the simple is the best!

I've learned something more about life from this movie (well, or at least USA's life)... life is really random... Sometimes, u meet someone, they pass by your life and be your friends coincidently, and u don't spend so much time with them, maybe just a while but u enjoy that ''while'' with them, and then u and them will never meet each other again, but the time u are together is really unforgettable. Just keep those moments in your mind as grateful and nice memories...

This movie might be cheap in the making price but its meanings are totally not cheap. I rarely can learn anything from movies, but this is an exception.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I am glad being able to say almost only positive things about the movie with Karas and the Tasuiev sisters, RENAISSANCE.

And firstly, that it looks as it ought to look; a boys' adventure, RENAISSANCE is the tale of a cop's investigation in search of a missing young scientistIlona Tasuiev, the geneticist and researcher for the Avalon company.

The tale of Karas, Ilona and Bislane is, though much less known than SIN CITY, the better movie, and the one more appreciated by the connoisseurs. To the French comics aficionados it will be even more meaningful (I have enriched my French comics collection last week, though I'm not so uptodate). The atmosphere, the music, the characters, their lines, the plot are all nice and endearing. A Parisian top cop, Karas, is displayed to find a young woman who was a rising star of medicalgenetic research, Ilona Tasuieva mildly hot blonde, whose rebel sister Bislane was erotically preferable, I guess.

For me, an oldie aficionado of comics and TV series, RENAISSANCE, a marvelously beautiful cartoon, was like a replay of a WILD WILD WEST episodehere, a mythological past replaced with an equally mythological futuremore jaded and blase but, in a sense, as thrilling. RENAISSANCE is not suspenseful; nor does it look especially wellpaced; but it's seducing and hypnotic. Moreover, it achieves sketching, albeit briefly, a world, a true worldand we will think about the Avalon, Nakata, Jonas Mueller, the Tasuiev sisters, and Goran, Farfella, and Karas telling of his distant childhood in Kasbah . I liked RENAISSANCE's feel, of a certain gentleness and affability and adventurousness, and also the professional, assured look; among these new cartoons, this one and Linklater's Dick adaptation (--the only and first Dick adaptation ever--) stood out for me as works of beauty and genuine excitement.

I thought the futuristic devices were appropriate and, when not conventional, vividly eerie (like the invisibility costumes).

As advisable, the characters have exotic names, like Bislane and Farfella, mostly gathered from the arts and entertainment's world (Goran and Ilona and Naghib ).

None seems to have noticed that RENAISSANCE's poster features a Rourke look-alikethat guy is Marv; which doesn't make it a SIN CITY rip--off, but not a paragon of originality either, and in fact there's more resemblance to the Miller talenamely, the bleak futuristic look of a decayed society, the brio of the hero (in fact a cross of Willis' character and Rourke's persona in the previous movie )on the other hand, this cartoon breathes a more public air, a brim of straight adventurousness, and, in a word, it's like SIN CITY for kidswell, naughtier kids I mean, 'cause there's a bit of nudity on display. To what I have said one might retort that the traits mentioned are characteristic, even as cliches and common places of the futuristic more adult comics' look; true enough, and it was oldie Miller to have brought that things on screen and RENAISSANCE bears some resemblances here and there. Now it's also fair that every RING ought to have its ERAGORN, so to each sin city, its renaissance. I admit being quite partial to these bleak futuristic tales, a rather undemanding specialty.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?

I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.

Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.

Nicely done, Paul and Peter!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have to say that this is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I was bored and looked through the t.v. and found "Home Room" and it was already in about 5 min., but I got hooked. It was so interesting and moving. It shows what can happen in anyone's life. I give it a 10, more if possible. The director/ writer and actors did an amazing job. I think teens should watch this movie and will learn from it. It was great, drama, mystery, and more. I cried for hours! I think that the director/ writer should write more movies like this one. I loved it! I didn't even know about this movie, which is sad because it was so good. I wish it could go in the movies for more people to see.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.

Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.

Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.

But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.

That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.

The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.

Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.

Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.

Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.

Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.