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

Answer: A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.

The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...

After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.

Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The basic hook here is: Lincoln Is Slow. It is his slowness that represents his thoughtfulness and deliberation, making him a Great Leader who is here engaged in single-handedly civilizing the American frontier through the grand instrument of Law. All that John Ford hooey and more, including one lurking slave and extraneous Death By Injun. However! The 'slow' conceit is also at the center of one brilliant piece of movie-making, funny and moving at extremes. The history may be bunk, but the telling of it suggests a view of history as process that inspires some excitingly true-seeming moments. Check out Henry Fonda's big introductory stroll across the deck, his shockingly beautiful second visit with his girl by the river, his dalliance with Mary Todd on the porch, and the priceless business that follows 'Ma'am, we've got to hurry!' Things do thin out once we settle into the big courtroom drama; but Fonda is priceless throughout.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......oops,........... James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have to say I was really looking forward on watching this film and finding some new life in it that would separate it from most dull and overly crafted mexican films. I have no idea why but I trusted Sexo, Pudor y Lagrimas to be the one to inject freshness and confidence to our non-existent industry. Maybe it was because the soundtrack(which I listened to before I saw the film) sounded different from others, maybe it was because it dared to include newer faces(apart from Demian Bichir who is always a favorite of mexican film directors) and supposedly dealed within it's script with modern social behaviour, maybe because it's photography I saw in the trailers was bright and realistic instead of theatrical. The film turned out to be a major crowd pleaser, and a major letdown. What Serrano actually deals here with is the very old fashioned "battle of the sexes" as in "all men are the same" and "why is it that all women...;" blah,blah,blah. Nothing new in it, not even that, it uses so much common ground and cliche that it eventually mocks itself without leaving any valuable reflexion on the female/male condition. Full of usual tramps on the audience like safe gags about the cliches I talked about before(those always work, always) and screaming performances(it is a well acted film in it's context)..and by screaming I mean, literally. The at first more compelling characters played by Monica Dionne and Demian Bichir turn out to be according to Serrano the more pathetic ones. I completely disagree with Serrano, they shouldn't have been treated that way only to serve as marionettes for his lesson to come through...he made sure we got HIS message and completely destroyed their roles that were the only solid ground in which this story could have stood. Anyway, it is after all, a very entertaining film at times and you will probably have a good time seeing it (if you accept to be manipulated by it).
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I finally got around to seeing this after hearing great things about it. It actually exceeded my expectations. Considering the budget involved this was a surprisingly competent and well-made film. The lack of finances actually helped this film in several ways, especially given the plot. Just like The Blair Witch Project, this film was all the better for being shot on video instead of film. Another bonus: Whereas most low-budget horror films (even the best of the best) suffer from mediocre-to-unintentionally hysterical acting, this film actually had a talented cast (save one or two characters), particularly the two leads. The only thing missing from the film was an original storyline. It borrows heavily from better-known films like "Deliverance" and "Wrong Turn" but if you're like me, films of this nature never cease to be terrifying. Plus, the director keeps things interesting throughout. I'd be very interested to see what the director would do with a bigger budget and I have a feeling it will only be a matter of time before we find out...
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)