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

Answer: Well that's 90 minutes of my life I won't get back. This movie makes teen tv show "California Dreams" look like "Almost Famous". The acting was horrid and storyline unrealistic. Don't even get me started on the actual band at the forefront of this story, lame songs, look etc.. You had to believe that they were one of the hottest bands in the country, and there isn't enough irony in the world to accept that one. The guitarist is seen to be a heroin user, not that I blame him, if I was around such a putrid band with stale songs and wooden acting I'd be injecting the horse too.

If you take music remotely seriously, avoid this at all costs.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of 'Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's 'grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a Cesar award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played 'Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poire and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and deja-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a 'brainless moment'! 2/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Spoilers I guess.

The absolutely absurd logic of the ending ruins the entire movie. I just couldn't get over it. And what is wrong with Mark Wahlberg's character? If I suddenly found myself crashed-landed on a planet full of talking apes, I'd be all like, " AAAAhhhhHHH!!! Run for your lives! The monkeys have inherited the Earth!" But he's all like, "talking apes, okay. Next?" That's pretty jaded I'd say. He must run into even stranger things on a regular basis. Besides that, this is Rick Baker's best work yet. This film is a true testament to how far we've come in the monkey makeup field. 3/10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.

There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been "The Vanishing Bride" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.

I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.