Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I have read all of the Love Come Softly books. Knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book,but generally they at least have the main point of the book. I was highly disappointed in this movie. The only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that Missy's father comes to visit,(although in the book both parents come). That is all. The story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes, sad, from the book, that I just couldn't enjoy it. Even if I didn't read the book it was too sad. I do know that Pioneer life was rough,but the whole movie was a downer. The rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special!

Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl Helen Selleck is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream "unprofessionals"--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.

After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.

Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.

By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Last night I finished re-watching "Jane Eyre" (1983), the BBC mini-series adapted from Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance novel which is deservingly a classic of English literature with Timothy Dalton (my favorite James Bond) as Mr. Edward Rochester and Zelah Clarke, as Jane Eyre, a poor orphaned 18-year-old girl, a governess at Mr. Rochester's estate, Thornfield. "Jane Eyre" has been one of my most beloved books since I was an 11-years-old girl and the friend of mine gave it to me with the words, "This book is amazing" and so it was and I have read it dozens of times and I am still not tired of it. Its beautiful language, refined, fragrant, and surprisingly fresh, the dialogs, and above all, two main characters, and the story of their impossible love have attracted many filmmakers. "Jane Eyre" has been adapted to TV and big screen many times, 18 according to IMDb. The actors as famous and marvelous as Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, George C. Scott and Susannah York, Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton have played the couple that had overcome hundreds of obstacles made by society, laws, religion, by the differences in age, backgrounds, experiences, and by the fateful mistakes that would hunt one for many years. Of all these films I've only seen one, 300 minutes long BBC version from 1983 that follows the novel closely and where Timothy Dalton who frequently plays dark, brooding characters did not just play Edward Rochester brilliantly and with class, he WAS Mr. Rochester - sardonic, vibrant, the force of nature, powerful, passionate, sexy, and tormented master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke was also convincing as sweet, gentle, intelligent and strong Jane who feels deeply and is full of passion mixed with clear reasoning, and quiet but firm willpower.

Added on September 17, 2007: During the last two weeks, I've seen five "Jane Eyre" movies and it was a wonderful experience. There is something to admire in every adaptation of "Jane Eyre" even if not all of them are completely successful. This version is still my favorite "Jane Eyre" film.