Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I for one have shamelessly enjoyed every episode of Pushing Daisies this season, and hope that the writers' strike won't brutally end the beginnings of a very good show. Ned is a pie maker who owns a restaurant in the middle of town and has a secret talent. Emmerson is a private investigator with his own unique quirks like his love of knitting. Charlotte (Chuck) is the once-dead-but-not-anymore childhood friend and sunny spot of Ned's life. Olive is the jealous but good-hearted waitress. Oh, and add the dog. Jim Dale brings all the characters together with his wonderful narration of the show. Chuck, Ned, and Emmerson along with Olive and occasionally the dog solve multiple murder mysteries with the assistance of Ned's special gift of bringing dead people back to life. The show is funny, clean, and romantic in a very cute and good-hearted way, and I'd recommend it to anyone.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a really nice and sweet movie that the entire family can enjoy. It's about two dogs and a cat who are taken away to live with someone else for a little while but the animals don't understand and they escape and go to find the family on their own. The cat is named Sassy and she lives up to her name. Chance is the younger dog who knows a lot about life on the inside of the pound. Shadow is the older and wiser dog who senses things. Put those three together on an adventure and it makes for a happy and fun filled time. There are no special effects of the mouths moving so it isn't cheesy at all. It's the best talking animal movie that I've seen so far. It's a really good movie for families.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The first time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.

I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.

The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.

I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.

The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.

The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...

See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.

3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Silly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.

This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.

In short, Saki a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name' rides into the town basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.

Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.

The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.

Rather, it's a bad film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This film was rather a disappointment. After the very slow, very intense (and quite gory) beginning the film begins to lose it. Too much plot leaves too little time for explanation, and coming out of the theater I wondered what this was all about. The characters remain shallow, the story is not convincing at all, most of it is deja vu stuff without hints of parody, and there are some very cheesy parts... Like, the young cop has to do dig up a body. Of course it's night AND it rains AND he has to do it alone... yawn! Or The Manifestation of the Evil being "nazis" plus "genetic manipulation"... Wow, that's really original. There are some nice bits, though, like the fistfight scene, mountain views and some (running) gags, but (though Reno and Vincent Cassel do what they can) that's definitely not worth it. (3 out of 10)