Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.

But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).

I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I finally watched these episodes in 2008 and I had to continually go back and verify when they were actually produced. They are absolutely scary in that they made spot on fun of what would be the future. Either Parker and Stone lived in Texas and witnessed the idiocy of Gov Bush or they are those weird, eerie people that pay attention to things. Boo, scary! Bush's frat bros invading the White House dressed as Arabs wielding rifles? Bush 'accidentally' executing someone? (No, wait. He did sort of do that as gov.) This may have seemed a failure as a sitcom at the time, but must now be considered as brilliant, if spooky, prescience.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.

This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.

I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well I said so.

Done right I'd say turn it into an HBO original series hit a different religion every week.

It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.

Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.