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

Answer: I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.

Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Wow...what can I say...First off IMDb says this is in the late 60s...which means Carlito would be very close to going to prison, He got out in 75 and said he was in for 5 years. They used a bunch of nobody actors, and a story that didn't even make sense. They bring back only one actor, Guzman, and hes playing a totally different guy. Why did it end with him and this Puerto Rican chick? Wheres Gale? He said he was in love with her before. Wheres Kleinfeld? He said he knew him forever...You'd think he'd have been in this one. And if this made sense, where are Rocco and the black dude in the first one? It was all just stupid...This is an insult to Pacino and the first film.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.

In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled "Army of 2".

The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.

You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.

The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says "Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".

I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.

A+.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A lot of people don't think Branagh's Hamlet film is all that good, but I must admit I think it is splendid. Like virtually every production of Shakespeare, it has problems and it has had to make hard choices, not all of which work out. The thing about the "secret doors everywhere", for instance, simply doesn't work. That element never achieves the ominous feeling of metaphor or analogy that it attempts to, which results in the play being too gaudy and losing its trademark sense of a thousand mysteries looming. This is the biggest problem with this production. And while it's a biggie, I'm also inclined to say that it's the only problem. Almost everything else works out absolutely beautifully. All right, so Branagh is a mite too old for the title role. And the relationship with Ophelia seems a little forced. And he gets too hysterical at times. But that's it. No other complaints. Even with these faults, I think this version is a seminal one, and if it's not as powerful a drama as it ought to be, it's every bit the literary work that it equally ought to be. We get the complete text of the longest version of the play, innovatively and expensively brought to the screen, mostly enunciated in perfect and modern and highly understandable voices - even if they sometimes speak too quickly in order to get the massive text over with. But in a staging of Shakespeare, it simply is not possible to speak slowly enough for the audience to really appreciate the full depths of the language. For that, one must delve into the print versions of the plays.

All the actors of this version are simply mesmerizing and utterly and instantly classic (incl. Jack Lemmon). Julie Christie as Gertrude is surely one of the best ever, and even the American actors are astounding, esp. Charlton Heston as the Player King - who would have thought it?! (A story is going around that Heston once played Hamlet on stage, and when a critic in the front row couldn't stand his hammy acting and said out loud, "This is terrible!", Heston reportedly retorted right from the stage: "Well, I didn't write this crap!" Of course it may not be true, but it's a funny story - and if true, a bold and ironic choice for Branagh to include Heston here.) Robin Williams as "Young Ozric" is perhaps not young enough for the part, but he makes it a comical one, which is warranted.

Overall it is a very well-produced version, with most of the key scenes being, to my mind, supremely memorable. Of course, I watched this movie just as I was becoming interested in Shakespeare (and around the same time as Luhrmann's formidable Romeo+Juliet), and it made a great impression on me, which must account for some of my fondness for it.

All things considered, I must pronounce Branagh's Hamlet to be my favorite one, with Derek Jacobi's 1980 BBC version a close second. I probably like Branagh's Shakespeare work more than most, finding him an expert interpreter and popularizer, with an attractively casual attitude to the words and a deep and appropriately and unashamedly enthusiastic appreciation of the text. In the world of Shakespeare acting, the two brightest luminaries remain Olivier and Branagh, and while Olivier is the superior actor, Branagh brings Shakespeare down from the pedestal of snobbery and artifice, and transforms it into churlish, easy-going, populistic worldliness while compromising none of its dignity. Branagh, I believe, brings out a truer Shakespeare than the world has yet seen.

And so, 10 out of 10 for an absolutely tremendous Hamlet.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?