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

Answer: Written and directed by Steve Gordon. Running time: 97 minutes. Classified PG.

It was the quintessential comedy of the decade. It won Sir John Gielgud the Academy Award. It was even featured in VH1's "I Love the 80's." And it looks just as good today as it did upon it's initial release. Arthur is the acclaimed comedy classic about a drunken millionaire (played with enthusiasm and wit by Dudley Moore in an Oscar-nominated performance) who must choose between the woman he loves and the life he's grown accustomed to. While the basic plot is one big cliche, there's nothing trite about this congenial combination of clever dialogue and hilarious farce. Arthur Bach is essentially nothing more than a pretentious jerk, but you can't help but like him. Especially when he delivers lines such as, "Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!" He's also a delineation from the archetypical movie hero: unlike most wealthy characters we see on the silver screen, he's not ashamed of being filthy rich. In one scene, a man asks him, "What does it feel like to have all that money?," to which he responds, "It feels great." Moore lends such charisma and charm to a character that would otherwise be loathed by his audience. And Gielgud is simply perfect as the arrogant servant, addressing his master with extreme condescension in spite of the fact that his salary depends on him. Arthur is one of those movies that doesn't try to be brilliant or particularly exceptional: it just comes naturally. The screenplay -- which also earned a nod from the Academy -- is saturated with authentic laugh-out-loud dialogue. This is the kind of movie that, when together with a bunch of poker buddies, you quote endlessly to one another. It also looks at its characters with sincere empathy. There have been a number of comedies that attempt to dip into drama by including the death or illness of a principal star (including both Grumpy Old Men's), but few can carry it off because we just don't care. When this movie makes the dubious decision to knock off the butler, it actually works, because we genuinely like these people. Why should you see Arthur? The answer is simple: because it's an all-around, non-guilty pleasure. At a period in which films are becoming more and more serious, Arthur reminds us what it feels like to go to the movies and just have a good time.

**** - Classic
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I happened to see this movie twice or more and found it well made! WWII had freshly ended and the so-called "Cold War" was about to begin. This movie could, therefore, be defined as one of the best "propaganda", patriotic movies preparing Americans and, secondly, people from the still to be formed "Western NATO block" of countries to face the next coming menace. The movie celebrates the might of the US, through the centuries, while projecting itself onwards to the then present war, which had just ended. Nice and funny is the way of describing the discovering of the American Continent by Columbus and pretty the "espisode" of New Amsterdam and the purchasing of Manhattan from a drunk local Indian .. Must see it (at least once, for curiosity of fashion of propaganda through time)! :)
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The only thing that prevented this flick from being a total disaster were a couple of interesting stylish touches.

(Moderate Spoiler Alert) Death by comic is a bit derivative of a scene in Twilight Zone: The Movie, which delivers death by cartoon. Still this was handled nicely, especially watching the ink bleed and the color being sapped out.

Additionally, there is one other good scene with a demon motorcycle.

Having said that, I was glad I got the DVD cheap at a store going out of business sale, because this was pretty awful. I bought "Soul Survivors" at the same time and both movies were similarly annoying with the constant realizations that you have been watching a dream. However , where "Soul Survivors" has nothing to redeem it, or have it make any sense, this at least had a couple of stylish notes, referred to above.

Interestingly, the DVD lets you go to the 8 'nightmares' where something actually happens, which is the only way to watch this. The scripting between the creative gore moments is rather unbearable.

3 out of 10.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.

Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far.

A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When i heard about this movie it was supposed to be the funniest thing i've ever seen, Yes it was funny. I mean i liked it all until the end where...........Oh no i can't tell u should it for yourself. It is funny except. The vulgar language. That's why i say if u like movies that r funny in sexual ways watch it , but if not don't waist ur money on renting it or buying it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.

But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.

This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.

Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.

I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.

Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it."