Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I've seen this film on Sky Cinema not too long ago.. I must admit, it was a really good Western which features 2 of the big names.. On one side, there's Charlton Heston, playing the infamous and retired lawman Samuel Burgade. On the other.. The late James Coburn playing the villainous Zach Provo.. seeking revenge on Burgade no matter what the cost..!

The good thing about this film was there was some really good characters.. Most of the actors played it out really well.. Especially James Coburn, who I find that he was really mean in this film.. But that how it was..

Christopher Mitchum, who I've seen everywhere in other films.. Playing Hal Brickman.. I felt his character was left out in the cold, but he manage to get himself back in by teaming up with Burgade, to bring down Provo's posse's!

All in all, it was a great film.. Very good to watch.. Great score from the late Jerry Goldsmith..

Wonderful piece of Western persona..! 8 out of 10.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A must for any punk rocker, this is the movie that made The Ramones a household name back in the early 1980's (when it first appeared on premium cable stations). This was one of the first and best of the American Punk Rock movies, with a cult classic status up there with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Originally the producers wanted Cheap Trick as the stars, but the release of the "Live At Budakon" album had just made them superstars and too hot an item to be in a low budget movie. Very good luck for the Ramones who were looking to break out of the underground punk rock world and into the mainstream market (which sadly never happened until after the bands demise). The band, Dee Dee especially, always disliked the movie through the 80's but the fans always loved and could recite most of the movie while waiting to get into Ramones shows. This movie, like most classics, is stupid fun with some classic Ramones footage in their heyday. Don't expect more, you won't find it. It's great fun, so enjoy it. Another Allan Arkush classic movie in a similar vein is Get Crazy, featuring Lee Ving from the legendary hardcore punk band Fear.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.

The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.

But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.

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

Answer: This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This film exceeded my expectations. I thought and have heard that it was going to be rubbish, so i wasn't expecting much. However, i was pleasantly surprised. At first i didn't take well to the lead girl and didn't really care if she lived or died. After a while she definitely grew on me and became a likable character. It's not just some slasher film where people die for no reason. There is a background story that only takes a few seconds of the film, but explains a lot. I would recommend this film to everyone. If you're not sure just watch it anyway, it's only an hour and a half of your life. You're going to live for 80 years anyway.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.