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

A: How truly friendly, charming and cordial is this unpretentious old serial; I rejoiced in seeing old Lugosi. It is disarmingly friendly and lively. It's the document of a longlost craft. (The best TV series today can hardly compete with these old moderately good serials.) CHANDU is deeply, deeply optimistic and hedonistic . It refreshes the mind. It's not stupid; stupid are those who do not get the terms on which such serials work. CHANDU has an irresistible sense of simple, unpretentious and friendly fun.

Without giving away too muchChandu is an Occidental sorcerer who goes also by this Eastern name and who also loves and protects his niece against a sect of killers.

Chandu exerts his supernatural gifts in a rather discreet and moderate way.

As to the quite sexy niece, Nadji, she is kidnapped by the priest of Ubasti: the sordid Vindhyan. The poor sexy girl is in fact multiply kidnappedin a sarcophagus after being sent asleep with a flower; almost kidnapped from a boat; by a phony policeman; the temple of Lemuria and its strange, creepy ceremonies resemble the KING KONG imageryand are a barbaric mockery of the RCC ceremonies and rituals.

Would you protect a girl as bravely as Chandu does?

Lugosi looked like an old libidinous and quite heartless, mean drunk, and this only contributed to his performances. He is the prototypical mean drunk uncle, mischievous and cunning and oblique. This might sound like a rather crooked homage to Lugosiyet Burton's biopic of Wood left me this impression about Lugosi and allied to it a strong sympathy for the decrepit actor. I enjoy Lugosi' fancy performances.

This serial is unjustly bashed.

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

A: I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?

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

A:
I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did. I got it simply because I saw it on the list of Top 25 Most Controversial Films of All Time. It didn't look particularly great. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was one of the most cleverly composed films of recent memory.

It's about a twenty-year-old woman wants to know everything. She stores every bit of information she collects in an enormous archive. She experiments with experience in sex, political activism, and human relationships. Meanwhile, film's crew is shown making the film and we view their reactions to the story and each other. Nudity, explicit sex, and controversial politics kept this film from being shown in the US while its seizure by Customs was appealed. The film is a narrative yet it's a documentary that shows us the behind-the- scenes world of the filmmakers during the narrative, the fourth wall being broken. This film is the most direct possible way of making a movie I have ever seen. The movie predominantly works as a time capsule of 1960s psychedelic goings-on, freedom-fighting and sexual liberation. I like to think of it as much more than that.

I didn't think I would want to waste my time with the blue version of this movie, but I actually really do. This film is a buried treasure. Give it a try.