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

A: Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter albeit resourceful showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingenue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun particularly at a compact 73 minutes.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.

Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is the very last of the series, and like part 4, it's unrelated to the first three except by title and the fact that it's a Christmas-themed horror flick.

Except to the oblivious, there's some obvious things going on here...Mickey Rooney plays a toymaker named Joe Petto and his creepy son's name is Pino. Ring a bell, anyone? Now, a little boy named Derek heard a knock at the door one evening, and opened it to find a present on the doorstep for him. Even though it said "don't open till Christmas", he begins to open it anyway but is stopped by his dad, who scolds him and sends him to bed, and opens the gift himself. Inside is a little red ball that sprouts Santa arms and a head, and proceeds to kill dad. Oops, maybe he should have left well-enough alone. Of course Derek is then traumatized by the incident since he watched it from the stairs, but he doesn't grow up to be some killer Santa, he just stops talking.

There's a mysterious stranger lurking around, who seems very interested in the toys that Joe Petto makes. We even see him buying a bunch when Derek's mom takes him to the store to find a gift for him to bring him out of his trauma. And what exactly is this guy doing? Well, we're not sure but he does seem to be taking these toys apart to see what makes them tick. He does keep his landlord from evicting him by promising him to pay him in cash the next day and presents him with a "Larry the Larvae" toy for his kid, but of course "Larry" is not a good toy and gets out of the box in the car and of course, well, things aren't pretty.

Anyway, eventually what's going on with Joe Petto and Pino is of course revealed, and as with the old story, Pino is not a "real boy". Pino is probably even more agitated and naughty because he suffers from "Kenitalia" (a smooth plastic crotch) so that could account for his evil ways. And the identity of the lurking stranger is revealed too, and there's even kind of a happy ending of sorts. Whee.

A step up from part 4, but not much of one. Again, Brian Yuzna is involved, and Screaming Mad George, so some decent special effects, but not enough to make this great. A few leftovers from part 4 are hanging around too, like Clint Howard and Neith Hunter, but that doesn't really make any difference. Anyway, I now have seeing the whole series out of my system. Now if I could get some of it out of my brain. 4 out of 5.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like "Plan 9!") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: So Mary and Rhoda have aged--who hasn't? I was a teen when Mary premiered, and a "young adult" when it left the air. Yes, it was great to see Mary and Rho together, and yes, maybe the film didn't sustain the comedy of the original series, but there were enough moments that recalled the spirit of the series to make this a fitting tribute. Example: the producer who hires Mary and then dictates the idea for a new series about "old people." Isn't this typical of the mentality of present-day Hollywood TV and film "bean counters?" This may not be THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW at its best--but it's a pretty damned good look back at one of the best shows we grew up with in the 70s.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Dear Richard, I know we all loved you on Home Improvement with Tim Allen. But seriously, do you not have anything else to do besides lame sequels to Air Bud? I would have thought Tim might have actually give you a bit role by now or even becoming his personal assistant. I know that seems ironic, but the pay benefits are much more rewarding.

Everybody would see you around Tim and instantly think "Tool Time". You would even get roles with Bob Vila more often. Instead, you appear for 10 minutes with a Golden Retriever and smiling. I know there wasn't much of a script, but you could have added to it. I mean, come on. Tim owes you one.

But seriously, this movie does nothing for the Air Bud line. Quite the contrary, the fake talking puppies are cornier than actually seeing the dogs play sports. The original was better. And you, Mr. Richard Karn, know that more than anybody.

This is an "F" movie.