An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a great film.

I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).

But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.

Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.

In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Ya. That is what I think. Sure it was still a great show with John in it but I personally think that it is way better without.

I love having C.J. and Grandpa living at the house because they are so funny together.

When John was still around I really didn't laugh as much as I do now.

It is too bad that no more are being made. ( I don't think...) because I would love to see some new material.

My favorite character must be Rory. poor Rory is almost always left out. It is always about Bridget or Carrie. WHAT ABOUT RORY!!!??? Honestly this is a great show and to any one who has never watched it you must go and watch it. I almost guarantee you will laugh. well even chuckle.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This show was Fabulous. It was intricate and well written and all the characters where likable with out being horribly sweet. Even Jonathan Cake the philandering boyfriend was likable. Since our airwaves are filled with crap like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, it was nice to see a drama that was not too soap opera like. It was always intriguing to see how each character would be connected to the next circumstance. It really is annoying that we finally get a show that makes you think a little bit and have it thrown out because of some mysterious number that most of us don't even pay attention to. Some of us are not sheep. This show will be missed maybe not by a lot of people but by some pretty loyal fans.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...

Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.

Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.

The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poire tries to avoid... and fails.

Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valerie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poire doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.

Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.

The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.

Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.

In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.

The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.