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

Answer: One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.

Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.

I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.

McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.

Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Acting This film is a very well acted film. I will say that the performances are slightly weak at times; but for the most part, the acting is very good. The only actor that blew me away with his performance was Jude Law as Harlen Maguire. He was incredible! Tom Hanks seemed alittle unsure at at a few points throughout the film but he too was incredible. Paul Newman, good as always. Cinematography This is what made the movie a masterpiece (and I rarely use that word). Conrad Hall is a true genius. If at any point in the movie you were to pause it, you will see the delicately crafted work of this man. He sets up every shot so that nothing is left out. When the camera is still, there is a postcard like quality to the screen. When the camera is moving, every shot is planned to understated perfection. But it doesn't stop there. Conrads choice of colors and contrast between light and dark settings is a work of art. The way he lights the set is some of the most amazing lighting work I've seen. His work on this movie made it what it is. This movie is at the top of the list for best Cinematography with LOTR, Black Hawk Down, Hero, CTHD, Moulin Rouge, and Vertigo. Story People will say this movie is a 1930s gangster flick but, I believe they missed the point of the movie. It is a love story about a hit-man who fails in trying to protect his son from the life he chose. It is a brilliantly crafted story that unfolds into a beautiful bond between two people who have nothing but each other. The screen Writing is worthy of an Oscar. Music Thomas Newman conducts a sad but hopeful score to intensify this sad but hopeful story. The music is some of the most beautiful and moving scores I've herd. Direction Sam Mendes is a new director with a feel of an experienced director. The symbols he uses and the performances he gets from his actors is a rarity in todays film-making world. I will be on the lookout for the next Sam Mendes Film. 10/10 one of the most moving and beautiful movies I've ever seen.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.

When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.

One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I am a back Batman movie and TV fan. I loved the show (new and old) and I loved all the movies. But this movie is not as great as some people were hopeing it to be. In my opinon, it is a big let down. I think the problem was it had no drama. Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker had a lot of drama. and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero had some drama too. Also, I think this movie is to light for Batman. The only scene that seems a little dark is the big fight with Bane at the end. Anyways, it's an ok Batman movie. But I would just rent it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I've been watching this movie by hoping to find a pretty and interesting story yet the story line wasn't good at all. The play of the actors weren't any better.

Of course Shahrukh Khan was there yet he wasn't enough to make this movie "credible" and interesting.

I've read that this movie was based on the novel of Flaubert "Madame Bovary" yet for me I didn't see it matching with the Indian mentality.

In general we buy movie to dream and have a good time, not to waste our time and change our mood into worse. I just can't understand how it could get such a "high" vote with an average of 6.8/10.

So it's the kind of movie you should run away & ignore because there is nothing to appreciate in it! You will just waste your time unless if you like "dark movie" with "strange and non sense story".
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. "Food of the Gods," or "Willard" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...

**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography.

--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...

The Bad:

--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart.

--The acting is extremely poor.

--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of cliches and none of them are even done that well.

--Booooooooooooring.

--Been done before--plenty of times.

--Stupid story, just stupid.

--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.

--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog.

--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.

The Ugly:

--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, "Scarecrow" (2002) or "House of the Dead." Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.

Memorable Scene:

--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.

Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10

Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10

Overall: 1/10

Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.

(www.ResidentHazard.com)