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

Answer: Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I bought this DVD for $1 at Walmart. After seeing it, I might just return to the store and try to get my money back! The only reason I gave the movie a 2 and not a 1 is that the story has a few novel story elements, though it really never rises to the level of being interesting. This film has all the earmarks of being a made for the drive-in theaters market--ultra-low budget, amateurish acting and a liberal dose of sex (for an early 60s film). In fact, I wonder if perhaps the only reason the film was made was to make a fast buck AND because someone knew some strippers they could use as extras. The film is about a wacko doctor who wants to transplant his girlfriend's severed head onto the body of an unsuspecting donor. Most of the potential donors are skanky strippers or a model--whose only real purpose in the film is to titillate as they remove most of their clothes. However, they keep too much on to make the movie even worth watching for the naughty bits and the film isn't quite awful enough to merit watching by bad film buffs.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.

Here's a review without pretensions:

Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.

Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.

One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.

Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.

Unless.

You're.

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

Answer:
Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.

This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.

Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.

The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.

This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.

The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint.