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

Answer: There's about 25 years worth of inspiration packed into it. Beginning with existential themes of Blade Runner, as well as the vision of the future - with corporate billboards advertising their products, to the technology of the later Matrix films and Spielberg's A.I., and finally the black and white graphic novel look similar in style of Sin City. The creators have put in a lot of effort in the visual department and the outcome is a well crafted future neo-noir. Add a detective story and you've got an interesting film. I know what it wanted to be, but regardless of the stunning visuals, it wasn't enough to get it to the final destination.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: At least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange

directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed.

I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text?

Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting.

Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Cavemen was by far the biggest load of crap I have ever wasted my time watching. This show based on the Geico commercials is less entertaining then an actual 30 sec ad for Geico. The makeup was half ass-ed to say the least, hard to imagine a caveman with prefect white teeth even after going to the dentist. This show could of had potential for a funny series if they could of gotten the cast from the commercials, that in it self makes for a lousy show. Perhaps if the writers were the same from the Geico ads this may of had a chance, instead the pilot lacked a good story line. I give this show a 1 out of 10, I would of liked to put a zero out of 10 but that was not an option. I pray for a quick death to this show, I'd give it less then 5 episodes before it dies a deserving death.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.

Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'

The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from 'The Flight of the Phoenix').

Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on 'Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited 'Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'

TV actors include the girlfriend from 'Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), 'Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and 'Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.