Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Q.E.D. was a brilliant TV series and it truly was one of the very few worth scheduling for! I suspect that in this era of TIVO and recording devices that it would fare much better than it did in 1982. I am eagerly awaiting its availability on DVD!

While it is true that it has some in common with other television shows like The Wild, Wild West, The Bearcats and The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., all of which I am a huge fan of,Q.E.D. had a much more intellectual quality to it. It did not suffer for that, however - the dialog was witty and the action was high. The show ran in the UK as Mastermind, and it did have something of the BBC feel to it, but with better production values than BBC typically had in that era.

I was a nineteen year old lad when this series ran initially, and had much too much to do in my life to make time for television. I remember my dear mother, however, calling me to remind me that Q.E.D. was on, and we would sit on the phone and watch it together. Wonderful memories.

Truly, Q.E.D. is a sad loss and, if it could be done with the same quality and values today, I would love to see it make a return.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I really liked BATMAN: DEAD END, I thought that it had a theatrical feel to it and that given a chance Collora could make a fine film. This trailer didn't quite give me the same impression. The story line, or potential story line, was quite good but due to the acting and special effects left me feeling like this would have made a good TV movie or television show.

First, Michael O'Hearn is not that good a Superman. I actually thought he, in his brief appearance, made a decent Clark Kent. Sorry, I just don't think of SuperMan as being that buff. The suit Kent wore masked his size. Batman may have the body of a bodybuilder but not Superman. Supes is toned no doubt but not bulk. Anyway, I didn't care for all his posing and his transformation from Kent to Superman seemed cheezy. Now this may not be just O'Hearn's fault, Collora may have to take some of the credit for poor scripting and direction.

Second, the special effects for flying were cheezy. Superman flies through the sky. If was obvious that this Superman flew close to the ground, with the telephone cables and buildings visible above him. I don't think there were any full body shots of Superman flying. Evidently the harness and rigging supporting O'Hearn must have been located on his lower torso.

All in all it was a good trailer. I'd probably pay to see a film, if ever made, and would be sure to catch it on television. The story line, an alliance between Lexcorp and Wayne Industries, Superman jealous of Lois's attraction to Wayne, Lex and Twoface teaming to beat Superman and the joining of forces between Batman & Superman is a good one. I'm sure with a larger budget and approval for a full film Collora and company, even O'Hearn could deliver a decent film. Certainly one better than the most of the comic based crap coming out of Hollywood lately.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I realise that the US Army was demoralised by 1971, but this film was unbelievable. It was supposed to be a training camp not the SS punishment battalion in a Sven Hassell novel. The writer must be a real Army hater. The psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell, and the useless Black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. These men were going overseas, the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from, and an investigation would have ensued. The scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. Farrell, the alleged barrack room lawyer, would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture POWs in contravention to the Geneva Convention ), actual assault on an enlisted man, sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. Intead he just walks away. After this, discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. I don't know how it ended, I went to bed.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Against All Flags" is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, "Against All Flags" is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.

The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.

The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.

Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.

Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.

The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.

The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.