Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals.

I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.

Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.

I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors.

I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future.

What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. I cannot express how bad it is. I honestly wanted to kill myself several times through this atrocious experience just to have the pain end. I recommend instead of seeing this movie, you bathe in acid then you will at least know a fraction of the pain without all of the scars.

I had such high expectations when I read the back of the DVD case, and when in the beginning it added that Jesus was following them I was so excited... then by the end I wanted to kill myself. I mean a twenty-three minute introduction to the most annoying characters in the history of cinema... JUST PAIN! Monkeys could have done a better job editing this trash. At least they would have thrown feces and blurred some of the garbage. It would have made it better to have not seen any of the horror.

It wasn't that I didn't get the jokes, it's that they were not only not funny, they repeated themselves like twenty times. Apparently, something isn't funny unless you see it like a million times.

Do not under any circumstances see this. People have rated 'Manos the Hands of Fate' as the worlds worst movie. I have seen that too and agree that it is bad... but ALAS it is only the second worst. 'Fatty Drives the Bus' is by far worse.

This deserves all kind of harsh language, but I can't write that here so just imagine I swore a whole bunch.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The cliches come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly.

All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.

The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).

Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When I saw that IMDb users rated this movie the bottom 250 movies, I thought it was too harsh but little did I know that the low rating was absolutely correct.

I am a big fan of the Wayans brothers. I loved their Scary Movie 2 and even enjoyed White Chicks. Little Man, however, had very few laughs and the jokes were stale.

Obviously, the joke will revolve around Marlon Wayans, who plays a grown midget that was recently let out of prison. He and his partner, Tracy Morgan, steal a diamond meant for a gangster. Things go awry and the midget has to place the diamond with an unsuspecting couple played by Shawn Wayans and Kerry Washington. In order to get the diamond back, the midget pretends to be an abandoned baby left on the unsuspecting couples doorstep. Of course, he is taken in and the drama begins on quest for the diamond.

The movie has some actors and actresses from Saturday Night Live like Molly Shannon and Rob Schneider as well from In Living Colour. All these talents, however, cannot help the poor script and the jokes which simply was not funny.

The special effects to make Marlon Wayans to look like a midget was OK. I mean, it was not 100% believable but it was OK...nothing great. I just wish that the Wayans brothers had put more effort into developing a script with good jokes rather than trying to shore up their poor script with cameos from their famous comedic actors and actresses.

Wait for it on cable or television. It really is not worth any amount of money.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud.