Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.

We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.

Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).

I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When it came out, this was pretty much state of the art musical film entertainment. To this day it's more entertaining than most, in great part because it has James Cagney in the lead role as a musical prologue producer under a succession of deadlines and sheltered from all storms by his trusty "girl Friday" played by Joan Blondell. Also the musical numbers towards the end which were put together by Busby Berkeley are pretty much a knock-out as far as that type of thing goes.

But this is a pretty strange movie. I mean in one of those numbers, you've got Billy Barty running around pretending to be a lovable toddler, doing all kinds of weird stuff. Ruby Keeler seems to have a sickening smile plastered on her face at all times, but at least she's not required to act like in some of her later unfortunate films. You'd never guess that Dick Powell was any kind of tough guy from seeing him in this movie; apparently all the tough guy energy was allocated to the star Cagney. As for Cagney, his high speed rants about musical shows and so forth are endearing and annoying at the same time. After a while it gets a bit too much. You expect him to walk out and say, "Hey! I've got a great idea for a prologue! The women are cigarettes, and they come out of a pack of smokes! Oh no, we did that one last month!" It's funny but it gets a bit repetitive. In the moments where he has to get tough with the bad girl, Ruth Donnelly, some of the established Cagney gangster character comes out. In fact frequent B gangster director William Keighley is credited here with dialogue coaching, and it seems at times that Cagney and Blondell are invoking something very "street" even though the characters aren't criminal.

The musical numbers... what can you say? They stand alone as entertainment, the way that Berkeley uses the human body and geometry is really startling. But none of them really mean anything. It means "Honeymoon Hotel", nothing really more or less. And the whole pretense of the integration falls apart immediately, since the characters in the show are doing things that couldn't possibly be appreciated by a theater audience like the movie portrays. For example at one point they show the fine print on a newspaper, things like that. The whole thing could only exist on film, so the idea that the prologues are actually live shows is ridiculous. I can only suppose that audiences of the time were somewhat less critical about things like this than they would be ten years later or so, because this is a very polished production.

It's great to see Cagney himself show off his superb dancing skills, and he can actually share the stage with a dancer like Keeler. Cagney and Blondell have excellent chemistry and their scenes go off really well. The music I would say is only mediocre, but mostly pleasing if repetitive. Bacon's direction in general is very suitable but never interesting. The film's entertainment value is unquestionable and it has also picked up some nostalgic value along the way. It's a cut above most "let's put on a show" films of the 30s.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Contrary to what those who hate Christianity, the 700 Club provides real answers as well as inspiration. It also provides reliable news, logical commentary and a different view than what ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS thinks is best. Unlike other programs, which provide social and faith-related commentary, those who are behind the 700 Club provide help for those in need, such as feeding the hungry with Operation Blessing, providing medical help to those living in poverty-stricken communities and giving hope to those who need hope. It's not at all hateful. If the 700 Club offends you, I suggest reaching for the remote control and turning the channel on your TV set. I do the same thing when I find CNN Headline News or for that matter, programs which I find biased or offensive. What I find offensive is the way that the ABC Family inserts the disclaimer that the views of the 700 Club do not reflect those of ABC Family.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I spent 5 hours drenched in this film. Nothing I have ever seen comes close to the delicious funk this film left me in. Never mind females advanced aging dilemma's, human fear vaults off the screen for your viewing. Personally engaging to the ninth degree, the film invests one with an undeniable shared feeling for our lives'. I enjoyed this dalliance with raw wounded gall deep from within. It empowers a mutually shared vestment in the history of human encounters reaching far deeper into the pain, isolation and skewed views of self and others. The result forgives our tepid forming of a bridge away from the muddy sludge of dead we must encounter. The birth in finding real people is a happy pursuit. The effort for realism intersects with the dark ground of our bankrupt culture.