Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This film just goes around in circles, and the viewer does not know where they are. At first I thought..mmmmm, could be kinda cool movie this, but it just drags on and on, and eventually you don't know what's going on. The lead female is a good actress and played her role well, and the psycho fella, is creepy, but after a bit you don't really care what happens, because this film just drags on. Shame really, this could have turned out a lot better.

Would say though that the lead female and psycho fella, will have a good career ahead of them , but will they remember this film, for making them known, or for being the film they regret they ever made.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...

*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***

Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.

Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: For those looking for a sequel for the fine South African miniseries of the 1980s, this isn't it. Nor is it a historical drama. Rather, it is a dreary little fantasy which has nothing to do with the historical Shaka, but merely uses his name to give a certain cachet to Sinclair's idiotic story about an African superhero who is a combination of Jesus, Lincoln, Superman, and Nelson Mandela.

On the other hand, there are a few laugh-out-loud moments, as when Shaka breaks the cross to which he is chained and kicks some serious slaver butt. You know, like Jesus would have done if he hadn't been such a wimp.

True, I saw only the 98-minute version, but I can't imagine that twice as much of this crap would have been better.

And what kind of a name is Mungo?!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I've just seen this movie for the second time on television. It's lovely, warm, sentimental, very very romantic. I've rarely seen actors better able to reveal by their movements and gestures love for another -Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Downey,Jr. and especially Mary Stuart Masterson simply outdo themselves. Masterson probably has the hardest role and is just adorable.

The movie is in the vein of both romantic movies such as While You Were Sleeping, When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle and the "high gimmick" sorts of movies like Big, Back to the Future, Peggy Sue Got Married. I hate to say this, because this cast was superb and I'd never change any of them- but I think it didn't succeed as well as the movies mentioned above because the box office appeal of the cast was just not as great as Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Michael J. Fox, and Kathleen Turner at the time the movie was made.

It's not superbly written - e.g., the characters' lines are not particularly memorable. Yet it's executed to perfection.

The romantic yearnings are truly palpable, the "feeling" of people falling in love is exquisitely communicated, love's timelessness and all-encompassing sweep, the feeling of loss and desire to recapture that connection, are so touchingly delivered. Again and again, you will find yourself moved. Actually, a comparable movie is Made in Heaven -the same romantic yearning.

Do see this - it's lovely.