Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have seen The Perfect Son about three times. I fail to see how this film is a gay film, I am not even gay, but I don't see it as a gay film. It is a film with a gay character, I can't see why every film with a gay character should be strictly a film about being gay. I find the film to be sympathetic to the study of death, the death of someone who is your kin. I think Theo turns his life around fairly quickly after rehab because he wants to and watching his brother dying in front of him makes him reassess his life. I found the dialog in the scene when Theo tells Ryan he is going to be a father to be very moving, Ryan states that he doesn't want to know about the things he is never going to see or share with anyone. Isn't that horrific and sad? I highly recommend the film.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Maybe one of the most entertaining Ninja-movies ever made. A hard-hitting action movie with lots of gore and slow motion (eehaaa!). Made in '83 and still the greatest swedish action movie made so far! And we can hardly wait to see the upcoming sequel, Ninja mission 2000 - The legacy of Markov!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The comment by "eliz7212-1" hits the proverbial "nail on the head" for this turkey of a program. But it is a hoot to watch William Shatner "cavort" and "dance" (yes, the " " marks on the word dance are necessary for what Bill does). This show would be a great skit on SNL or MAD TV - and it does rate a few stars for one viewing, or so, to see Shatner, who seems to have taken "camp" to new heights - whether in a role or as himself. But the guy is funny.

The girls who are in the cubicle areas with the game data scrolls, will be pretty much out-of-luck when this turkey is canceled - unless there is a revival of the whiskey-a-go-go genre, with a resurrected demand for shapely young women to dance in elevated cages once more.

I watched the first contestant, who was annoying, and literally "dumber than a :post," yet through sheer luck, walked away with a quarter mil or so. The second contestant, somewhat more intelligent, but who'd be lucky to gain $1,000 on Jeopardy!, got zonked by the card which requires answering a special question - which he didn't know, and thereby left with zilch.

This plethora of game shows, which dangle, and sometimes award, large sums to everyday individuals, are admittedly a cheap effort, overall, to attempt to woo viewers. Even if the host is well-compensated, and they give away six figures in an average episode, I suppose that the revenue versus costs can be favorable - since you don't have a sitcom cast where several stars are getting six or seven figures, per episode, with some big residual deals as well.

But I suspect even the better ones will wear thin before long. This one has already pretty much reached this point. I think his offerings, especially with James Spader, and the others on "Boston Legal" should give us a satisfying quantity of Bill Shatner's offerings.

Again, the above rating is simply appropriate to view Bill hoot and prance, perhaps one time; that should be sufficient.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: While I don't agree with Bob's and Tammy's decision to give up baby Jesse, and it's something I'd never do, they were trying to do what was best for the baby. The way this movie is written, you see yourself becoming wrapped up in the story and asking yourself what you really believe, from all different aspects. Patty Duke? Antagonist? Almost unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. But during the movie, she really convinces you that she's psychotic, or at least, that there's something seriously wrong with her. Her character is the meaning of "emotionally disturbed." The movie seems to end quickly, leaving things somewhat unresolved. But other than that, this movie is really great. It really makes you think. It's not a movie to watch when you just want to kick back and relax and watch something cute that'll make you laugh. But it is a good movie to see when you want to challenge your own beliefs, see things from others' perspectives, and discover a little something about yourself. Caution: you may even grow while watching this movie! And it's all worth it, in the end.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.

This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.

But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."

This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.