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

A: Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliche by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from ****
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is one of the few movies I watched twice in the theatre. I really love this movie for its atmosphere and its telling of the life of tragic hero Esteban Trueba. He makes so many mistakes but gets a chance for redemption. Isn't this a rather consoling thought?

When I watched it for the first time, I thought that after the won election, the movie would be over - I didn't know the book. So boy was I wrong when the dramatic climax was still to come! I was literally swept away by the sheer power of the last half hour of the film.

Many people here utterly dislike this movie. I cannot understand that one single bit. Maybe those who read the book first are - as often with screen adaptations of novels - simply disappointed that so many things have remained untold, unseen, unexplained. But as a movie telling a touching story - the story of a family, the rise and fall of a man, the deep compassion of a woman, the strength of love and the insanity of hate (and conservatism) - this movie is simply splendid! Furthermore, the soundtrack is incredibly good and the cast is wonderful as well - especially Winona Ryder and Jeremy Irons.

So definitely one of those films that cinema was invented for!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Very bad. Very, very bad. As a fellow who aspires to make, be in or - at least - sniff the catering table at a movie set, I find it hard to criticize independents who actually got a movie of any sort made. However, this movie ... oh dear.

Realizing Frightworld doesn't aspire to anything more than crude exploitation (an honorable thing in itself) and to try to make it conform to more mainstream standards is a mistake. And to be fair, it is more entertaining than - say - Red Zone Cuba ... but not by much. So I won't try to critique, just let me ask throw out some observations.

1) If gore is the point of the movie, shouldn't you be able to see it?

2) If you have hire three sound men make sure at least one knows how to operate the equipment.

3) In a horror movie your lead maniac must be scarier than a smurf doll. Difficult I know but really...

4) There is a lot of talented videographers in the Buffalo/Rochester area, most you can hire really cheap. Get one who knows how to frame a scene.

5) Just because you have someone who knows how to use After Effects and other cool programs doesn't mean he should do so every two seconds.

6) Kudos for getting the girls to take off their tops but next time, get girls who's tops we want to see taken off.

7) Editing should help tell the story or set a mood. At the least in this sort of movie editing should sell the gore gags. A chainsaw suddenly appearing in a characters stomach is not scary, it's sloppy.

Some good things. Not all the acting was bad. Jack was pretty good and I liked Acid once she started fighting back. There was some neat imagery, unfortunately it was thrown up on the screen without rhyme or reason. "Acid Poptart" is a name that deserves a better movie. I like the moxie of Frightworld too. Next time, now that they have a movie of sorts under their belts, I hope all involve aspire to something better than Colman Francis. Upgrade at least Ed Wood.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Between 1937 and 1939, Twentieth Century-Fox made a ton of Mr. Moto films. However, towards the end of the series, it was obvious that the studio had "jumped the shark", so to speak. This phrase indicates that a TV show has passed its prime and the executives in charge decided to invigorate the show by fundamentally changing the formula. For example, with "The Brady Bunch" they introduced the annoying 'Cousin Oliver' and with "Family Ties" they introduced a freak baby who grew up six years in only one season! With the Moto films, they'd jumped the shark by introducing comic relief because they thought that these intelligent films needed to be re-tooled. In the previous film, Warren Hymer played an annoying wrestler. And, in this film the character Archibald Featherstone appears. Featherstone might just be one of the most annoying examples of comic relief ever, as you kept hoping someone (preferably Moto) would kill him just to shut him up!! Although he's supposed to work for the famed Scotland Yard, he shows all the intelligence and acumen of a brain damaged turnip. Again and again, his scenes were boorish and unnecessary and Peter Lorre just looks pained as he stands there and watches this buffoon "act". It's so bad that it truly destroys what COULD have been one of the better Moto films due to its clever plot.

As for the plot, the crown of the Queen of Sheba is discovered in the opening scene. Moto, now more of an international policeman than the amoral character he originally was, is on hand to protect the precious item from being stolen. In a great twist, several thieves all try to steal the crown independently of each other.

Overall, the film is watchable but is also ample evidence that the Moto series should have ended here. With WWII approaching, the films couldn't have survived much longer anyway, as having a sympathetic Japanese leading character simply wouldn't have been accepted in the US or in allied countries.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This is loosely based on the ideas of the original 80's hit . It's set in the modern day as we see a base in Afghanistan get destroyed by a UAV right at the start.

And that's exactly where the movie jumps the shark. UAV's aren't armed. They could be but I don't think it's ever been tried for real. We get to see the computer that has masterminded this operation, called R.I.P.L.E.Y. We are introduced to "hacker" Will Farmer (he's good at chemistry & electronics which doesn't make him a computer hacker) & his love interest, Annie) & Will's 1st attempt at hacking is not only a complete failure his IP address is also logged and Annie guessed who it was. We also meet Wills mom who works for a chemical company.

Wills taking money from his neighbours bank account (Mr Massude) isn't a hack (he helped him set up the account), we then get a nod back to the original movie where they decide against playing Global Thermonuclear War & they play The Dead Code. The trace the RIPLEY office are running is NOT on Will but on Massude's pc so all the evidence they were gathering was useless against Will.

Exactly why RIPLEY shut Will's machine down isn't explained (he's only playing an online game?) & also why it felt the need to have to shut down all the electricity in the entire block he lived in as well. Why a counter terrorism agency would see this as a viable target is extremely questionable. As for RIPLEY activating his mobile phone? I think not, it wasn't connected to the pc and the message wouldn't play unless he actually answered the phone so there's more bad "hacking" science there too.

RIPLEY agents arrive at Massude's home, take him away & Will is given a envelope which turns out to contain a lot of money. Will searching for the licence plate of the car that took Massude isn't a "hack" as you never see him break into the DMV computer. The RIPLEY agents who grab Dennis in the airport as he's looking for Will have no authority to arrest or detain him. Will's mother hadn't "been stealing chemicals & Bio agents" either. And even if she did they had no right to arrest or detain Dennis. Patriot Act or not.

I don't know why Will was worried about being arrested for any crime in Canada as its a totally different country with different laws to the US.

The computer has gone rogue and all the action its taken against Will, his mother & Dennis wasn't sanctioned by a Government agency. The phone phreak we see Will do is the 1st show of any hacking skill in the movie, we also get a hack into RIPLEY which seemed too easy for such a powerful system.

The "guy" who ran into Annie at the airport & was also watching them in the street was nothing to do with RIPLEY & the laughable notion that RIPLEY could track a cellphone whilst underground was as stupid as the idea that a computer reads lips.

Another reference to the original movie when they mention Stephen Falken as the designer of the system RIPLEY replaced, the Joshua Project. We discover that the "guy" who ran into Annie is Falken (not played by the original actor sadly) who faked his own death.

We also get to see WOPR as "what's going to help" them beat RIPLEY and they kept the same voice used back then. Falken & WOPR are destroyed too quickly after being hardly used at all (the same explosion should kill Will, Annie & the Russian. It's also unlikely they'd create a self-contained computer system that has the ability to nuke or drop chemical weapons on the country it operates out of.

The whole "Decontamination" plot & idea are totally unbelievable. Those kinds of orders would have to go through the President or Joint Chiefs Of Staff. So yet another laughable & unbelievable idea.

The IP hacks against RIPLEY aren't done by Will, he just contacts one of his friends who suggests & implements the idea. It's excessively laughable that Will would get a login just from increasing RIPLEY's operating temperature. Having Joshua as a backdoor into RIPLEY (especially after it had been blown to bits) is an incredible cop-out and screams of a very desperate writer who had no ideas left and wanted to get this movie over and done with.

There is an awful good where RIPLEY is playing Dead Code and we see a countdown (saying 17 minutes) then RIPLEY says "Decontamination in 30 minutes", how crap is that when they can't even keep up with their own timer? RIPLEY's attack mission against Philadelphia is halted (far too easily in my opinion) and it decides to attack Joshua in its internal circuits and reroutes the missile aimed a Philly to Washington where RIPLEY is stationed. The idea of the Nuclear exchange to make RIPLEY realise what she's doing won't work (surely she'd already know if she had Joshua insider her as he'd already learnt this lesson in the original movie?) is yet another nod back to the original movie.

Their cop-out at having RIPLEY repeat Joshua's exact same words form the end of the original movie just goes to show how many original ideas they were unable to come up with.

If you want to point fingers for bad & stolen ideas the men to blame are Randall Badat & Rob Kerchner. This is an awful movie and is best avoided.