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

Answer: In Don Siegel's 1971 masterpiece "Dirty Harry", Clint Eastwood epitomized the super-tough, super-cool unorthodox, no-nonsense cinema-cop with his role of the eponymous Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan. Two sequels followed, the first of which, "Magnum Force", tamed down on the delightfully politically incorrect attitude of the first one that had outraged many critics but enthused audiences. The second sequel, "The Enforcer" was grittier again, and was promoted as "the dirtiest Harry of them all". This title, however, truly belongs to the fourth film in the series, Clint Eastwood's own "Sudden Impact", which is doubtlessly the grittiest, nastiest, most violent and downright dirtiest of all Harry films, and, in my humble opinion, the second-best after the masterpiece original.

***Warning! SPOILERS ahead!*** In a small town near San Francisco, a mysterious sexy lady (Sondra Locke) lures men into being alone with her. What these men don't know is that mysterious beauty is their former rape victim, longing for bloody revenge. As fate wants it, San Francisco's toughest cop, Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan, who has been suspended once again for angering his superiors, spends his leisure time in this exact little town... "Sudden Impact" is the dirtiest Callahan film in several aspects. The film is extremely gritty and graphically violent. Harry Callahan himself is dirtier than ever. Not afraid to make use of his 44. Magnum in order to stop trouble, Harry treats 'punks' as they are to be treated and even allows a person to get away with several murders because the revenge-murders are justified in his opinion. Clint Eastwood is, as always, brilliant in the role of Harry Callahan. Eastwood epitomized coolness and bad-assery as the "Man With No Name" in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy, and he did so again in the Dirty Harry films. "Sudden Impact" gives us the dirtiest Harry we have ever seen. Eastwood's real-life girlfriend Sondra Locke fits very well in the role of the vengeful beauty. The great Pat Hingle, who had already worked with Eastwood in Ted Post's tough-minded Western "Hang 'Em High" in 1986 plays the police chief of the small town. The film furthermore includes a wide range of truly despicable scumbag characters, including a pathetic criminal played by Kevin Major Howard (best known for his role in Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket") and a woman named Ray Perkins (Audrie J. Neenan), doubtlessly one of the most disgusting and despicable female characters ever in cinema. Albert Popwell, who played the bank robber in the famous "Do You Feel Lucky?" scene in "Dirty Harry" and the black militant leader in "The Enforcer" is also part of this one again, this time as Harry's colleague and buddy. Overall "Sudden Impact" is the grittiest, dirtiest and probably the most violent of all "Dirty Harry" films, (though "The Dead Pool" isn't exactly tame either), and my second-favorite after the brilliant 1971 original. An absolute must-see for Callahan fans, and highly recommended to all lovers of police thrillers and cinematic bad-assery. My rating: 8.5/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Special effects? Good.

Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.

Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.

This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.

Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.

And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.

Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the "role playing" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film seems to be a rip off of many movies that have dealt with the same subject in the past. Let the future viewer be forewarned that "Art Heist" doesn't add anything to the genre. Director Bryan Goeres has no clue what to do with the film.

William Baldwin keeps reappearing in films, and frankly, one wonders if he has a great agent, or is it that directors and producers love his unusual goofy looks, complimented by that strange hairdo he sports in most of his movies. The only good movie in which he has appeared, is "The Squid and the Whale", in which he only speaks two, or three lines. Ellen Pompeo, his leading lady, doesn't fare much better; there is no chemistry between Ms. Pompeo and Mr. Baldwin.

A movie to be seen at the viewer's own risk.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.

When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.

"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.

As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.

Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment.