Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I was so disappointed by this show. After hearing and reading all the hoopla about it, how it was a "ground breaking show" and all sorts of wild promises if quality, I tried to watch it.

What a letdown!! The acting was way forced and exaggerated. The story made very little sense. As for any hint of the vaunted "look into teenagers' lives", I could only see a paltry attempt that had as much reality to it as a reality show.

Some are wondering why there are so many negative comments about this show. The reason is that it's really not all that good and beating the drums over quality on this show only serves to attract attention to how poorly made it is.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I already loved "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" when it was released and I'm still loving it now, 5 years later. Still lots of people seem to disagree with my opinion and this movie never really had received much love at the time it came out.

Sure, the movie is over-the-top and campy but that at the very same is also the reason why this movie is so charming and fun to watch. All of the sets, costumes and characters are done perfectly over-the-top in a fun way, without ever becoming truly ridicules. It's a visually spectacular movie to watch. It's a campy movie making at its very best! Director Ron Howard really surprises with this fun little Christmas movie.

Main reason why the movie works and why it's so much fun to watch is Jim Carrey as the Grinch. He truly carries the movie with his good and fun role. He is of course helped by the convincing make-up, which also received an Academy Award. Of course if you're a Jim Carrey hater you shouldn't even think about watching this movie. This movie is really his movie and he makes it all work and so much fun to watch. Other fun and memorable roles are being played by Jeffrey Tambor, Clint Howard and Josh Ryan Evans as the young Grinch.

The movie has a good morale but it is all a bit sappy to me. Perhaps it's because I'm Dutch and we don't really celebrate Christmas that enthusiastic and big here, as in the United States or England. For me the movie was simply fun and entertaining and the morale just left me quite cold to be honest.

The musical score by James Horner is good and fun, even though it's your average every day Horner stuff, it still all works perfectly for the movie and helps to make some of the scene's work.

Perfect Christmas entertainment.

8/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Similar to "On the Town," this musical about sailors on shore leave falls short of the later classic in terms of pacing and the quality of the songs, but it has its own charms. Kelly has three fabulous dance routines: one with Jerry the cartoon mouse of "Tom and Jerry" fame, one with a little girl, and a fantasy sequence where he is a Spanish lover determined to reach his lady on a high balcony. Sinatra, playing Kelly's shy, inexperienced buddy, and Grayson, the woman who serves as the love interest for both men, do most of the singing. Iturbi provides some fine piano playing. At nearly two and half hours, it is a bit too long for a light musical but it doesn't drag.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: With the release of Peter Jackson's famed "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, it is even easier to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film as inferior. I agree with the majority that Jackson's trilogy is the essential film adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Bakshi's ambitious pioneering effort. Jackson has admitted that he received at least some inspiration from seeing Bakshi's film and there are some clear similarities between their adaptations.

The film's colorful picturesque backdrops are excellent and the score is memorable. I was for the most part satisfied by the drawings of the characters. The pairs of Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Galadriel are mostly indistinguishable from each other visually, the Balrog and Treebeard were unimpressive, but these points didn't bother me very much. However, the Nazgul are aptly drawn and made sufficiently eerie. The only character representation I was bothered by was Sam's; he was made to look unbecomingly silly.

This film is novel for its animation techniques. In addition to hand-drawn characters, live actors are incorporated into the animation through rotoscoping. It is quite apparent which characters are hand-drawn and which are rotoscoped, but none the less I found that the film's style was a novelty. The use of rotoscoped live actors for the battle scenes was a good decision and helped these scenes turn out well.

The voice acting was generally of high quality. Particularly good was John Hurt, who provided an authoritative voice for Aragorn. Aragorn isn't a favorite character of mine from the stories, but backed by John Hurt's voice he was my favorite character in this adaptation. My other favorite was William Squire, whose voice is appropriately strong for Gandalf. The only actor who seemed inappropriate was Michael Scholes as Sam, whose voice acting was irritating and added to Sam's unfortunately silly image. The only other bothersome part of the voice acting is the mispronunciation of character and place names. Particularly strange was the decision to frequently have Saruman referred to as "Aruman".

In producing this film, Ralph Bakshi expected to have the ability to produce two films. Hence, this film contains about half the story, from the start of "The Fellowship of the Ring" to the end of the battle at Helm's Deep in "The Two Towers". The obvious implication of this is that the film's story is a highly condensed version of the story from the books. I enjoy the original stories and more thorough adaptations, but the liberties taken to compress the story didn't bother me, even the choice to leave Arwen out of the story. Enough of the key elements of the story were in this film to keep me engaged for the duration and there was even a novelty in being able to breeze through half the Lord of the Rings story in 132 minutes. The battle scenes were impressive and in particular the orc march to and battle at Helm's Deep were tremendous.

Ralph Bakshi's version of "The Lord of the Rings" isn't perfect and no doubt a number of Lord of the Rings readers lament the cuts to the story. However, for me the drawbacks of this film were minor compared to the thrill of seeing an effective adaptation of half of a great trilogy. My only strong lament is that I am unable to see the second part of this "first great tale" of The Lord of the Rings since Bakshi was not given the budget to create a sequel.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: True, it does not follow the book very closely, but it's still a very entertaining take on the story. Swayze was far better in the role than I expected. And Doody avoided the "silly woman out of her depth in the wilderness" portrayal most of us probably expected (cf. Kate Capshaw in "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom").

At any rate, it's amazingly better than Richard Chamberlain's awful pair of Quatermain flicks.

It is very reminiscent of a western in many ways. About the only thing I didn't care for was all the mysticism, but I guess that is part and parcel of the genre. Like "how can you have an African adventure story without witch doctresses and preternaturally wise wandering tribesmen?" Heh.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.

During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.

The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.