An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Now this show looks like most of the other shows of it's type from the mid-90's, but the only thing is about this one is that it's different, they use a lot of comedy and action in this one and maybe a little bit of drama too. I personally thought it was a good show, I can't understand why would they cancel it. The good thing is that the fan base of this show is still alive ever since 1997 up to date.

My hopes is that the WB bring back the show or even do a movie, which I know is gonna be impossible to do, but hey it doesn't hurt to dream, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would recommend if you hadn't seen it to find the DVD of all 13 episodes, because the characters are great, the story lines are good, the comedy is good and well the whole show is just great.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Trying to compare or represent this "swill" as anything "Hitchcockian" is an out-n-out attempt to mislead Hitchcock fans to waste $7 on this movie... Weak acting Weak story Weak script.

No real suspense, no thrills. You wait all through the weakness of this movie for the big payoff or even any payoff...You're left thinking, what the heck was that all about.

And please, enough with the movement to make "alternative lifestyles" HIP and politically correct!!...I can't recommend this to anyone...Did I mention how weak the acting is? Williams did a better job as Peter Pan and "Mork". But those were MUCH more innocent times...........
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Despite its low-key release in this country, and its apparent disregard in other countries (the 'R' rating in the States can't have helped - honestly, just because HBC uses the C-word!), this is actually a fine piece of work. The sentimentality does occasionally threaten to choke it, but it's overcome by the playing of the two leads.

It's easy to win plaudits just because you're playing a physical or mental cripple (Daniel Day-Lewis, Geoffrey Rush, Dustin Hoffman, etc.), and Helena Bonham-Carter may not quite capture the physical degradation of MND, but her vocal stretching and ruthless emotional drive compensate entirely. In fact, almost all her performance is conducted through her eyes (and what eyes!). This is an intelligent turn from an actress who is rapidly undoing her English Rose reputation, and emerging as a figure of some stature. Awards must surely follow, though not, alas, for this fine performance.

Branagh, one feels, has never quite given his best on film (except possibly 'Hamlet', and there his playing was diluted by the large cast). Here, though, he tops his other appearances, playing to the hilt a self-loathing, unstable, ultimately lovable guy with a subtlety he hasn't always displayed, and exhibiting both intelligence and depth. In short, we believe him, just as much as we could NOT believe him as Frankenstein, as the priest in 'The Proposition', as the lawyer in 'The Gingerbread Man', even as Andrew in 'Peter's Friends'. This is surely his finest performance yet - so why could he not produce the goods much earlier?

As a film, it looks more like a television offering, and without its stars it probably wouldn't amount to very much. But it's been a pleasure to see this pair perform their socks off like this, and I eagerly await more from them (though not 'Love's Labour's Lost'...). 8 out of 10, but Branagh and HBC get 10 out of 10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Despite some mildly thought-provoking oddities in the script and the film's overall curiosity value, Fury of the Wolfman emerges as a dull, uninteresting excursion into lycanthropy, saved only by the statuesque presence of villainess Perla Cristal. The rest of the players, including the hammy Naschy, are a complete write-off (though admittedly none are helped by often atrocious dubbing). Although the screenplay packs in enough variations on werewolf/Frankenstein/Dr Moreau themes to flesh out a dozen movies, the plot is so unevenly developed, the characterizations so feeble and the dialogue so verbosely ridiculous (at least in the English version), that any latent interest in the turgid proceedings is soon quashed.

Zabalza's direction seems jerky, even amateurish. His staging is clumsy and ineffective. He is not helped by Villasenor's over-bright lighting. Even promising sets are so unatmospherically photographed that the director's few attempts to give the audience a fright are signaled far in advance

Other credits fall into a similar pattern of ineptitude, though the stridently over-emphatic music score and the laughably crude, totally primitive special effects deserve special condemnation.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
When you have two tower house of performers pitched against each other, the least you can expect is the superb camaraderie and that is the case in this film where we have a 64 yrs old Amitabh Bachchan romances a 34-yr old Tabu. Wait! In fact that is all there in the name of plot therefore instead of "cheeni" it is the content that is "Kum" in this Adman turned Writer-Director R. Balki's maiden effort..

Trust the two senior actors to bring the house down with their wise-cracks and bitter-sweet moments when love happened in this unconventional pair, and that is all you find in slow but refreshing first half. The locales of London as captured in rainy season are captivating. By the end of first half, romance completed and mission accomplished. There is not much left to be said. Therefore in the second half a strange opposition comes in the form of girl's father to the extent that he goes for a Satyagrah is really a test of patience. There is an equally strange climax about how he gives in. The result, second half is dry, flat with no energy. There is a subplot with a girl child dying of cancer, not making much impact. Nonetheless, the film is recommended for its fresh approach and the performances.