Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making "romantic comedies" because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable "romantic comedy" that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say "suspend your disbelief", one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.

I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Of all the reviews I've read, most people have been exceedingly hard on Alexandre. Neither Marie or Veronika ever seemed that they would particularly desperate to keep Alexandre, he being only slightly intelligent though not at all intellectual, as most of us are, however hard it may be for anyone to admit. Alexandre is getting away with life perfectly, being totally taken care of, getting and giving what he wants. the girls are allowing this, veronika loves sex, marie is his patron. is there anything wrong with any of this? is anyone in love? really? i don't think so. Though French New Wave cinema is prone to pretension and so on, it is marvelous simply because of its lack of a need for a plot in order to create emotion. Ease is perfectly lovely and all anyone in Alexandre's position, in an urban area can ask for. I'm looking for a patron, anyone interested?
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Bedknobs & Broomsticks is another one of Disney's masterpieces. It was filmed with sequences of animation and the actors and actresses interacting with the animations. (A similar concept was used in Mary Poppins when the children and Mary disappear into the sidewalk art.) I am mainly rating this film through child's eyes because I have not seen it in years. Back then, it was one of my favourite films. It was magical and mystical, and the last scenes (the conflict beginning with the ghostly armour walking into battle) were my favourites. There was also a lot of stop-animation used with the spells (ie, people turning into rabbits), which may be a little dated and silly now. (Also, I believe that the film starts off slowly.) Through the eyes of a child, this is a fun film and it is easy for children to put themselves into the places of the children in the film. It is an imaginative film which is sadly largely-forgotten today.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is my favorite Jackie Chan movie and in an interview, Jackie said it was his favorite as well. It contains some unbelievable stunts and jaw dropping fight sequences as well as some very funny scenes as well. This movie was a favorite of Brandon Lee, who used parts in Rapid Fire, and was also lifted in Tango and Cash, which used some of the opening scenes.

Jackie plays a policeman in Hong Kong. The story immediately jumps into a fantastic chase through a shanty town and continues as Jackie slides down a hill and jumps onto a moving bus to catch the evil Ku (who is one of the greatest villains in any Jackie Chan movie.) You can expect some very funny scenes as Jackie tries to balance his duty as a policeman with his girl friend, played by Maggie Chung. His job is to protect Ku's secretary who has enough information to take him down, but even that poses many problems. Jackie is at his absolute best here. The last fight scene at the mall is my favorite fight scene by anyone - period. It was the most intense fight I have ever seen Jackie do and climaxes in a slide down a pole amidst exploding lights. All in all, one of his greatest stunts he ever did and left him with skin pealed off his hands. He was fortunate he was not electrocuted as the person in charge of the stunt used high voltage instead of a lower voltage.

All in all, another Chan classic and definitely one of his greatest movies. By the end of this movie, you can tell he held absolutely nothing back and neither did his stuntmen. So many of his stuntmen were injured during this movie that nobody would insure them anymore - Jackie had to take responsibility himself. There are no gimmicks, wires or stand-ins - it is all true-life action that is a treat to watch. It is this type of action that made him the phenomenon that he is and it is a movie that will amaze people 100 years from now. If you have not seen this movie and are a fan of Jackie Chan or action in general, give yourself a treat and watch this movie. It is truly sensational.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.

I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.