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

Answer: Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.

It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.

It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.

2/10 (maybe a 2.5)
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.

As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.

This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Tony Scott directs a thriller sports flick that should attract even the non-sports fan. And some say baseball is a dead sport...boring...too damn slow. Well perk up! On the outside he appears to be a disgruntled salesman(Robert De Niro) while on the inside he is a psychotic San Francisco Giants fan. Along comes a new slugger(Wesley Snipes)and designated savior from the doldrums. Our salesman harbors a murderous obsession when the hard hitting all star falls into the worst slump in his career and the Giants are feared to crumble along with him. De Niro is terror personified. Snipes seems very natural as the ballplayer. Other notables in the cast are: the still attractive Ellen Barkin, John Leguizamo, Benicio Del Toro and Patti D'Arbanville. You are a free agent...so enjoy. Violence and very strong language is to be expected and you get your moneys worth.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
With nothing better to do I decided to check out "Aztec Rex" (as it was being billed) for the hell of it.

The silly story might have played better if the dinosaur effects were convincing. They actually looked like animatics (those rough designs that artists later use to finish the CGI effects, adding more details, smoother movements, etc.) Absolutely awful-looking dinosaurs, which is the only reason you'd probably want to sit through this anyway.

The one redeeming factor was the lovely Dichen Lachman as Ayacoatl. She kept my interest; if only the budget had been ramped up and some convincing dinosaurs could have been used.

Disappointing. At least the cast and crew got a free trip to Hawaii, where the movie was filmed.