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

Answer: This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.

This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Nothing new is this tired serio-comedy that wastes the talents of Danny Glover and Whoopi Goldberg. Considering that this was produced by the stars and Spike Lee, it's pretty tame and tired stuff. And how come the Whoop never changes her hair or glasses over the many years this film covers? Blah!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In the film Kongwon-do ui him it features a relatively intimate look into the meaningfulness (as well as general meaninglessness) into the lives of various Koreans; empty people seeking ways to fill themselves, enjoying the escapism of nature. From the beginning to the end of the film we observe the fallibility of the various characters; we learn of their shortcomings and their desires, the overall complexity captured within human life (and yet the overal simplicity of humanity). Although the film is slow-moving, it can be very contemplative. It does not force any ideas, but allows the ideas to come about themselves, it allows the concepts to reveal themselves.

The film ends as well and as suddenly as it begins, and one truly understands the meaning of aloneness, that love is often an act of selfishness, and the many mistakes that we make. It is a look into everyday life, very well and beautifully done.

If you are looking for action or for intense drama, this is not the film for you. However, if you enjoy honest, original, and meaningful films that are not forced and without glitz, this is a great film to watch.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS!

Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)

She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.

Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends.

What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.

Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)

The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud!

My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!

Watch it, you won't be disappointed!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).

Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).

Well, as I said in my summary...

What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.

I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.

I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.

The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.

Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.

This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.

I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
The Marriage of Maria Braun (MMB) is about a German girl (Maria) getting married to a German soldier (Herman Braun) just at the ending of the war. After being married for half a day and a night, Herman is send to the front again. To make ends meet, Maria starts working at a bar for mainly American soldiers and get to know a black soldier. She got word that Herman died at the front, and things develop between her and the American soldier. Herman walks in on them, in bed, and after a confrontation between him and the American, Maria killed the American. Herman admits to the murder, ends up in jail and Maria vows to wait for him. The country is in shambles; one sees people leaving everything that they are busy with for a cigarette. There are food shortages. It is in short, a time of survival of the fittest.

Basically this film projects Maria's attitudes - those attitudes she permits herself under the mentioned circumstances, as a metaphor for Germany's loss of soul after they lost the war, and how it proceeds to rebuild itself. For example, Maria has the following conversation with a peddler (played by Fassbinder himself); the peddler tries to sell her an excellent copy of Kleist and she remarks that "Kleist burns out to quickly, it does not provide enough heat for the cold". The peddler answers "That's another way to look at it. Right now, it's probably the correct way".

Maria meets a French/German business man, Karl Oswald after she bargains her way into the first class train compartment. She decides to get involve with Karl, "You're not having an affair with me; I'm having an affair with you". She also takes responsibility in the company, and after a while has the complete trust of the firm. When Karl says "I suppose we'll just have to wait for a miracle" she replies "I prefer making miracles then wait for them". In her own words, she has become the "Mata Hari of the economic miracle".

In a lot of Fassbinder's films he tried to expose the psychological processes which lie behind social mechanisms (see Freud); in other words, he liked pointing his camera at the bullsh*t, the false social mechanisms, the pretending. The direct approach Maria takes in this film is successful to convey this ideology. For example, she phones Karl and when he picks up the phone her request is straight to the point "I need someone to sleep with". As Fassbinder said "the emotions people felt did not exist at all and were only a kind of sentimentality which we thought we needed to be properly functioning members of society". He also remarked that his films are anti emotional.

I particularly liked the scene when Karl and Maria meet in the Munich restaurant (apparently, frequently visited by Hitler himself). Maria appears in control and Karl a bit on the down side, as if Maria's 'brutal honesty' wears him out, as if he is not completely up to the situation anymore. Karl says "I have to tell myself over and over that I love life". Maria replies "That's life isn't it. As if we signed a contract to enjoy life. And then we go out to eat and talk about food". I guess this is also about Fassbinder attitudes on relationships, to never submit completely to anyone. And why would you, if the central matter of most of his films is about "What love becomes in this society a commodity, an instrument of power, a weapon."

It was remarked that it is typical Fassbinder to have the scenes with Maria and Betti walking in expensive dresses in the ruins after the war - with these clothing essentially the wrong period. What I think he wanted to portray here were those attitudes, when you feel bad, that "you can always put on your make up and face the day looking great". But, Fassbinder was not interested in perfection. Any mistakes made in a film could just be corrected in the next project. Since he completed films (approximately 4 a year) the way other people rolled cigarettes, it is not peculiar that this film has some very bad scenes. Peter Marthesheimer, who wrote most of the script, mentioned that Fassbinder likely dreamed up the whole scene with Maria and the American in the park, overnight.

Hanna Schygulla is brilliant as Maria. Mostly, she just stares bluntly into the camera. In Maria's own words "It is a bad time for emotions. But, I like it like that".

There are different opinions about the end. After Karl died of a hart attack, Herman finally shows up. (Herman left for Australia after he got out of prison, to "become human again".) After the testament is delivered (made out to her and Herman in half), Maria forgets to close the gas on the stove when she lights her cigarette, and blow her and Herman up. For me it is obvious that she just did that by accident. At the same time, she must have been rattled when her dreams finally seem about to come true. She must have felt as if she was not herself anymore. She felt as if she had outlived herself.