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

A: The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.

No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.

But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.

I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.

The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger!

One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.

I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I love this movie. It was one of my favorite movies. The action never stops. The whole movie was done very well. The ending is really good. Ontop of it being action filled, they even have a surprised put in there for you. When i saw what the movie was about on the internet i was kind of not sure if i wanted to see this movie, but sense i am such a big Luke perry fan i decided to give it a chance. I am glad that i did give it a chance because this was a very well though out movie. It was very original. Whoever thought up this movie gets a standing ovation from me. The acting was great. Luke Perry did an excellent job once again. I give this movie the highest rating.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I buy or at least watch every Seagall movie. He came out with a handful of good movies then descending into poor stories, bad camera work and a walk-thru persona, he nearly lost me. A few movies ago he remembered how to make a decent movie. Now he's forgotten again. This film is seriously dark (on any level you care to name). There is a lot of slash & gash going on here with no discernible purpose unless it's meant as a warning against the military.

Seagall may have had a stand-in for many of his scenes as it was often too dark to tell and someone else's voice was used most of the time. Sadly the only interesting character was the bad guy who killed his guard to escape custody & then proceeded to raise havoc all over the place. Okay since when do we place an armed guard in the holding room with a prisoner? Anyway this bad guy was at least colorful, and very focused. There's lots of gore if you like that king of thing. It looked to me like the bad guys tore the same gash every time. I'm just glad they didn't suck the blood from their hapless victims. I harken you back to my summary. Basically it is a horror movie disguised as an action film.Dec 6,2006
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: ...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity.

Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to "Manos, the Hands of Fate"... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me.

This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them!

To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it.

This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy.

Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Portly nice guy falls for a luscious blonde; she likes him too, but not for the reasons you might think. Little-seen black comedy from writer Pat Proft features very good performances by Joe Alaskey and Donna Dixon, yet it makes no lasting impact. It's just a quickie throwaway effort, helmed by Norman Bates himself, Anthony Perkins. Even on the level of B-comedies, the somewhat-similar "Eating Raoul" is a better bet. There's definitely an amusing set-up here; unfortunately, the picture has nowhere to go in its second act. An interesting try, but it misfires.

** from ****