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

A: Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic cliched scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter albeit resourceful showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingenue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun particularly at a compact 73 minutes.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.

I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.

With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.

The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.

The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.

Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.

It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is your typical cheerful and colorful MGM musical from the early '50's and it's definitely on of the better ones to watch out there.

The movie got directed by the genre expert Vincente Minnelli and stars Gene Kelly in the main lead. Both did quite a few movies together back in those days, of which this one is probably their best known one.

The movie itself actually managed to win the best picture Oscar over the year, which meant it beat out movies such as "A Place in the Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The African Queen", "Quo Vadis", "The Blue Veil", "Death of a Salesman" that year. A real accomplishment of course but at the same time also a bit too much credit for this delightful, bright and entertaining movie.

When you watch this movie you surely will be entertained by it all, which is also thanks to the movie its beautiful color look and the many nice characters within this movie. The musical numbers are also all nicely done, which is no big surprise when you have people such as Vincente Minnelli and Gene Kelly at work.

But really, couldn't had everything that got told in this movie been done in halve an hour less or so? I mean, we already know where the movie is heading to but yet it manages to stretch it out all for as long as possible. Not that it makes the movie drag in any parts, it just makes it a bit overlong. The movie could had also definitely been done with a few less musical numbers in it.

One of the better MGM musicals, that is not without its flaws though.

8/10
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw this movie, and at times, I was unnerved believing this movie 'saw me.' Munchie sullies the 'farce' for years to come. Re-watch Star Wars, Don't-watch Munchie.

As a responsible parent (I'm speaking to those who are parents now), I (you) would not let my (your) child ever partake of this video festival of the pseudo-occult. To insinuate Munchie is satanic, to a co-viewer, is likely to illicit a chilled 'duh.' He is fiendish, alien, rodential, and wholly malevolent - like the Bogey man made flesh, invisible to adults, tempting children with lifestyles they could never afford (without the income made possible by years of self denial and prudent stewardship). He is a peddler of easy answers, and false ideals. He is everything the morally conscious viewer is not. He is the devil's own Ron Popeil.

I pray (I mean this literally and figuratively, with an emphasis on the former) that this movie has not made the format jump to DVD. It is my hope that this type of 'yellow film making' died an un-mourned death in the cold nights of 1994.

Munchie also loves pizza. I forgot to mention that. It comes up a lot.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending "falling while running away" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams "Noooo" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it.