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

Answer: Really enjoyed this little movie. It's a moving film about struggle, sacrifice and especially the bonds of friendship between different peoples (the child actor who plays Miki is especially good). There's so many large scale impersonal films set around WW2, that this convincingly told little story is a real break from the norm, and an original one at that. I'll also add that this film is far from boring, very far!! Of course the Horses are wonderful and the scenery breathtaking. To anyone who really treats their animal as part of the family (I do), you'll find this film especially rewarding. Recommended to movie fans who look for something a little different.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.

The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.

The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.

So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.

Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.

Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".

On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.

Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.

The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).

And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).

Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.

In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.

Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.