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

Answer: Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film sold for one-dollar at Wal-Mart on a DVD and so I do not feel like I lost anything for watching this film, except my TIME. Enjoyed the acting of Tom Hanks, (Robbie Wheeling), who was very young looking and gave an outstanding performance considering it was a horrible script. The story is about college students who decided to play the game Mazes & Monsters, only in a very realistic setting. Robbie Wheeling has had problems in the past playing this game at other colleges and is advised by his parents to leave the game alone and get good grades. Robbie meets a very nice gal and has a romantic fling with her and once he starts playing the game, he stops making love to her and acts like a Monk. There are some scenes in the film which are taken running around the former World Trade Center and also in the Observation floor and Roof area. It is rather sad viewing this part of the film where so many human beings died because of evil in the world. This is not a very good film, except for Tom Hanks trying to keep the film above the sinking level of entertainment.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this film as it was the second feature on a disc containing the previously banned Video Nasty 'Blood Rites'. As Blood Rites was entirely awful, I really wasn't expecting much from this film; but actually, it would seem that trash director Andy Milligan has outdone himself this time as Seeds of Sin tops Blood Rites in style and stands tall as a more than adequate slice of sick sixties sexploitation. The plot is actually quite similar to Blood Rites, as we focus on a dysfunctional family unit, and of course; there is an inheritance at stake. The film is shot in black and white, and the look and feel of it reminded me a lot of the trash classic 'The Curious Dr Humpp'. There's barely any gore on display, and the director seems keener to focus on sex, with themes of incest and hatred seeping through. The acting is typically trashy, but most of the women get to appear nude at some point and despite a poor reputation, director Andy Milligan actually seems to have an eye for this sort of thing, as many of the sequences in this film are actually quite beautiful. The plot is paper thin, and most of the film is filler; but the music is catchy, and the director also does a surprisingly good job with the sex scenes themselves, as most are somewhat erotic. Overall, this is not a great film; but it's likely to appeal to the cult fan, and gets a much higher recommendation than the better known and lower quality 'Blood Rites'.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This movie is a joke and must be one of the worst movies Stallone ever made. This is a typical 80s movie where you have one man destroying the whole army by himself. "First Blood Pt. 2" is very similar to Schwarzenegger's "Commando", but there you have Arnold killing the terrorist while here you have a specific nation showed as the bad guys. This movie is a typical American anti-Soviet propaganda. True, this was the peak of the Cold War, but I'm sick of having Communists or the Nazis always being shown as the enemy. There are so many American movies that have this one thing in common. Why can't there a movie that show Americans as the enemy? Who's going to believe that one lone soldier will destroy the whole army? Do you really think that something like this would have really happened? By the looks of it, an average, brain washed American viewer certainly would.