Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.

In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.

Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.

John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.

Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: *Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!!

*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded !

*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN !

*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!

*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !

*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.

*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !

*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !

*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !).

*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap !

*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !

*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!

*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition !

*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones !

*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !!

P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This norwegian movie is so crap, the actors can not act cause they seems to be reading from a book and the story is so (wannabe) hollywood..the only actor who did a ok job was Haavard Lilleheie..3/10 If you want a really good norwegian movie watch Buddy, great actors and a feelgood story 9/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Jake Speed" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).

But with all this going against it, "Jake Speed" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.

Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me "Hey, why not try to be a good person."

The story is essentially a "stranger in a strange land" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.

It's because of this that "Jake Speed" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.

Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as "Jake Speed" would get a chance. ("Due South," a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)

Sure, "Jake Speed" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.

The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead.