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

A: I loved it so much that I bought the DVD and the novel at the same time. The chemistry between the actors (including little Arthur) is amazing and thrilling.

It could have used a bit more screen time for the yummy Frederick Lawrence (played by James Purefoy). And Gilbert Markham was amazingly "on it" from the very start of the movie.

The one who most thrilled me via surprising shock and awe and wonder was Rupert Graves as Arthur Huntingdon. I adore him in Forsyte Saga, and all else I've seen him in. But he outdoes himself here as Arthur. In my wildest dreams I could not have pictured him playing a demented psycho such as Arthur Huntingdon. But he does. And I love it. And I love him.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: You, know, I can take the blood and the sex, but that thong bikini shot pretty much did me in. Someone get that girl some pasta before it's too late!

And you know, it's just not a good idea for a schlock movie to start off by mentioning the much better movie it's ripping off.

I gave this one a 2, just because it's marginally better than Tobe Hooper's CROCODILE.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have not read the novel, or anything other by Kurt Vonnegut, but I am now intending to start. This grips you from the very first frame, and does not let go until the end credits start rolling. Taking you places you don't expect, the plot is interesting throughout. The pacing is spot-on, nothing lasts too long, and this does a perfect job of balancing between unexpected twists and allowing the viewer to process what we've seen. It is well-told and well-thought out. I've never watched a film that I feel I could particularly compare this to. It is intense and exciting, as well as funny and sad. The acting is excellent, Nolte absolutely shines, Goodman again proves that he doesn't have to go for laughs, and Lee and Arkin are spellbinding. I could go on, really... no role is treated to a less than stellar performance. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and all of the visuals are great, with a couple of unforgettable and astonishing ones. I am going to go for other movies directed by Keith Gordon, as well as the other two apparently related to this, through the author of the books. There is one scene of sexuality, and a lot disturbing and unsettling content in this. I recommend this to anyone who can appreciate it; it is not pleasant. 8/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.

With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.

Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?

I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.

The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.

Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.

1/2* out of 4 stars