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

Answer: This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary "An inconvenient truth" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called "EARTH".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.

It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.

Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is like marmite. You either love it or you hate it. If you go into this film expecting a proper film with decent production values, a good plot and great characters you'll hate it. If you go into this film expecting a low budget slasher you'll probably hate it.

If you go into this film expecting to see one of the most deranged characters ever put to film in the form of Harry Russo you will love it. John Giancaspro is absolutely brilliant in his over the top portrayal of the insane, murderous coke fiend.

The special effects are abysmal at best but really, who cares? If you're the kind of person who's prepared to watch a film Schizophreniac: The Whore Mangler you've undoubtedly seen scores of horror films filled with gore. With the budget this film was made for even if they had tried it probably would've mediocre at best. I'd much rather be able to laugh at something abysmal than be unaffected by the mediocre.

To sum it up, you'll probably hate this film but if you're one of the few who decide to see it anyway it'll become the best thing since sliced bread #2 I hate marmite.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The Wayward Cloud is a frustrating film to watch. Infuriatingly enigmatic, it treats each shot like a work of art. You get the impression that the composition of each shot has been designed and prepared with a degree of exquisite care that borders on obsession; Expressing how far cinema has progressed since the very first films were cranked out in the nineteenth century and mimicking their construction, the camera here hardly ever moves apart from during the camp and colourful musical numbers. Ambient noise is kept to a minimum and barely a word is spoken. This curious but effective device forces the audience to focus their attention on visual stimuli alone so that, even as the story progresses at a snail-like pace we feel ourselves becoming immersed. Unfortunately, for me at least, this immersion begins to unravel somewhere around the hour mark. I began to feel as if the film was challenging me to keep watching while becoming more difficult as the minutes dragged so that the mere act of watching became a battle of wills.

Had the content of this film not been as sexual as it is it would no doubt been even more obscure to Western audiences. As it is, there's an abundance of female nudity and an act of sexual abuse on an unconscious (or possibly dead) woman that is so repugnant that, while it may speak volumes about the degradation to which pornography subjects both men and women (the users and the used) it is so over-zealous in the manner in which it chooses to make its point as to effectively render it ineffective. Of course the worst and most enthusiastic participants of the explosion in available pornographic content will seek this film out for all the wrong reasons and watch it with their sticky finger on the fast-forward button of the remote.

For all its problems, the film is definitely a stayer, and the more you think about it the more sense certain aspects of it seem to make. Ironically, for a film in which so little happens, the viewer would probably be proportionately rewarded by watching a second or even third time. For me, however, once was enough
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!!

All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.

Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)

Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.

Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.

Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.

The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone.