Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.

So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.

This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie is mostly chase scenes and special effects. It is very weak on plot. Most of the computer talk was just mumbo-jumbo. I watched this because I was a big fan of the original War Games movie which was based mostly on computer fact and real computer terminology. This movie had none of that. Most of the computer scenes were not only impossible and highly unrealistic of real computers and networks, but just lame. It is like it was written by somebody who has no comprehension of real computers.

The ripley game was lame and was essentially just an arcade game. No real hacking, so what was the point? Movie was boring. Lame sequel.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Everything is idyllic in Suburbia when the little family moves in, as the father have got a new job in a computer company there. But no paradise would be complete without its snake. Strange things happens as the family joins the local country club without the husband, as it certainly holds secrets. The father is not a joiner, but pressure is on him to join, as everyone who is anything in the neighborhood and at work are members. Robert Urich's good guy part is a bit tepid, but Joanna Cassidy as good natured housewife turning nasty sizzles. Suspenseful and well-made chiller with a bitchy Susan Lucci as club chairperson. Look out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a bit part as a valet. The movie captures the sense of paranoia and the special effects final is worth waiting for. I have seen this movie quite a few times.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Dressed to Kill (1980) is a mystery horror film from Brian De Palma and it really works.The atmosphere is right there.The atmosphere that makes you scared.And isn't that what a horror film is supposed to do.All the actors are in the right places.Michael Caine is perfect as Dr. Robert Elliott, the shrink with a little secret.Angie Dickinson as Kate Miller, the sexually frustrated mature woman is terrific.Keith Gordon as her son Peter is brilliant.Nancy Allen as Liz Blake the call girl is fantastic.Dennis Franz does his typical detective role.His Detective Marino is one of the most colorful in this movie.There are plenty of creepy scenes in this movie.The elevator scene is one of them.There have been made comparisons between this and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).There are some similarities between these two movies.Both of these movies may cause some sleepless nights.