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

A: I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is my favorite of the older Tom & Jerry cartoons from the early 40's. The original version with Mammy Two Shoes is on the Tom & Jerry Spotlight Collection 2 set, disc one, and showcases the wonderful detailed animation of the early cartoons. The gags on this one aren't all madcap Avery style, but more subtle and aimed at anyone who's ever stayed up late watching scary movies (or radio programs)! Tom is listening to a creepy radio show, and Jerry decides to play a number of tricks to spook him. The nine-lives gag is well done here, and I don't know how many times I tried to make a vacuum and a sheet that scary when I was a kid. When Tom's owner is awakened by the ruckus- Mammy was NOT the maid, it was HER house- she gets one heck of a surprise, with a big laugh. Get your pause button ready, it's worth it!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...

What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....

What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.

So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans....
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Yes, Marie Dresler drinks prune juice that she thinks is poison and she exits running.

Dresler is good. Never my cup of tea but she is a solid performer who surely holds the screen.

I watched this for Polly Moran, whom I've seen elsewhere. Here, Moran is OK -- just OK -- as Dressler's shrewish friend/foe. Too bad she has sunk into nearly total oblivion.

The plot is good hearted. Bad guys try to rob the townspeople. Dressler triumphs and all ends well.

I do wonder about the central plot mechanism: bonds. This came out during the Depression so maybe everyone was familiar with bonds and what they can do if used well and if used wrongly. I, however, not of that era, am vaguely familiar with them. They're like stocks only different, right? It seems odd to build a story about The Little Man around a somewhat sophisticated monetary entity.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
The original Lensman series of novels is a classic of the genre. It's pure adventure SF with some substance (here and there) and I've always wondered why Hollywood hasn't filmed it verbatim because it's just the kind of thing they love: massive explosions, super-weapons, uber-heroics, hero gets the girl, aliens (great CGI potential), good versus evil in the purest form, etc etc. Instead (and bear in mind I'm a Japan-o-phile and anime lover) we get this horrendous kiddies movie that rips the guts out of the story, mixes in Star-Wars (ironic as the latter ripped off the books occasionally) pastiches and dumbs the whole thing down to 'Thundercats' level. To see Kimball Kinnison, the epitome of the Galactic Patrol officer and second stage Lensman portrayed as a small boy is pitiful (etc). I just can't understand why the makers did this because they obviously had the rights to the story and could have made far more money (FAR!) by telling straight. It makes no sense.