Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.

Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: No-nonsense Inspector Hollaway (a solid turn by John Bennett) investigates the disappearance of a famous thespian and uncovers the wicked past history of a creepy old house. First and most mundane tale, "Method for Murder" - Successful author Charles Hillyer (nicely played by Denholm Elliott) is haunted by images of the murderous fiend he's writing about in his latest book. Although this particular outing is too obvious and predictable to be anything special, it does nonetheless build to a real dilly of a genuine surprise ending. Second and most poignant anecdote, "Waxworks" - Lonely Philip Grayson (the always outstanding Peter Cushing) and his equally lonesome friend Neville Rogers (the splendid Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with the beguiling wax statue of a beautiful, but lethal murderess. Third and most chilling vignette, "Sweets to the Sweet" - Quiet, reserved and secretive widower John Reid (a typically terrific Christopher Lee in a rare semi-sympathetic role) hires nanny Ann Norton (the fine Nyree Dawn Porter) to take care of his seemingly cute and harmless daughter Jane (a remarkably spooky and unnerving performance by the adorable Chloe Franks). This stand-out scary episode is given a substantial disturbing boost by the exceptional acting from gifted child actress Franks, who projects a truly unsettling sense of serene evil lurking just underneath a deceptively sweet and innocent angelic veneer. Fourth and most amusing yarn, "The Cloak" - Pompous horror movie star Paul Henderson (delightfully essayed to the haughty hilt by Jon Pertwee) purchases a mysterious cloak that causes him to transform into a vampire whenever he wears it. This item makes for good silly fun and further benefits from the awesomely pulchritudinous presence of the luscious Ingrid Pitt as enticing vampiress Carla. Director Peter Duffell, working from a deliciously macabre and witty script by noted horror scribe Robert Bloch, maintains a snappy pace throughout and does an ace job of creating a suitably eerie atmosphere. Kudos are also in order for Ray Parslow's crisp cinematography and the shuddery score by Michael Dress. Highly recommended to fans of omnibus fright fare.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)