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

Answer: This movie only got a 1 because you can't give a zero! if you have a weak tummy AT ALL don't watch. animal rights people you don't want to watch either. it makes people vegetarians i swear i witnessed it happen! the only cool parts are the case and the fact that its a true story. its really really super creepy that this guy worked at ADT while he killed people! still feel safe when you punch in that little code? i don't! He had access to every code in Kansas!!!!!! I hated the movie it was not scary it was mentally scaring! Do your self a favor and don;t rent/buy this movie i think it cost about $20 to make that INCLUDES their OVER paid actors!!!!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I am uncertain what to make of this misshapen 2007 dramedy. Attempting to be a new millennium cross-hybrid between On Golden Pond and The Prince of Tides, this film ends up being an erratic mess shifting so mercurially between comedy and melodrama that the emotional pitch always seems off. The main problem seems to be the irreconcilable difference between Garry Marshall's sentimental direction and Mark Andrus' dark, rather confusing screenplay. The story focuses on the unraveling relationship between mother Lilly and daughter Rachel, who have driven all the way from San Francisco to small-town Hull, Idaho where grandmother Georgia lives. The idea is for Lilly to leave Rachel for the summer under Georgia's taskmaster jurisdiction replete with her draconian rules since the young 17-year old has become an incorrigible hellion.

The set-up is clear enough, but the characters are made to shift quickly and often inexplicably between sympathetic and shrill to fit the contrived contours of the storyline. It veers haphazardly through issues of alcoholism, child molestation and dysfunctional families until it settles into its pat resolution. The three actresses at the center redeem some of the dramatic convolutions but to varying degrees. Probably due to her off-screen reputation and her scratchy smoker's voice, Lindsay Lohan makes Rachel's promiscuity and manipulative tactics palpable, although she becomes less credible as her character reveals the psychological wounds that give a reason for her hedonistic behavior. Felicity Huffman is forced to play Lilly on two strident notes - as a petulant, resentful daughter to a mother who never got close to her and as an angry, alcoholic mother who starts to recognize her own accountability in her daughter's state of mind. She does what she can with the role on both fronts, but her efforts never add up to a flesh-and-blood human being.

At close to seventy, Jane Fonda looks great, even as weather-beaten as she is here, and has the star presence to get away with the cartoon-like dimensions of the flinty Georgia. The problem I have with Fonda's casting is that the legendary actress deserves far more than a series of one-liners and maternal stares. Between this and 2005's execrable Monster-in-Law, it does make one wonder if her best work is behind her. It should come as no surprise that the actresses' male counterparts are completely overshadowed. Garrett Hedlund looks a little too surfer-dude as the naive Harlan, a devout Mormon whose sudden love for Rachel could delay his two-year missionary stint. Cary Elwes plays on a familiar suspicious note as Lilly's husband, an unfortunate case where predictable casting appears to telegraph the movie's ending.

There is also the omnipresent Dermot Mulroney in the morose triple-play role of the wounded widower, Lilly's former flame and Rachel's new boss as town veterinarian Dr. Simon Ward. Laurie Metcalf has a barely-there role as Simon's sister Paula, while Marshall regular Hector Elizondo and songsmith Paul Williams show up in cameos. Some of Andrus' dialogue is plain awful and the wavering seriocomic tone never settles on anything that feels right. There are several small extras with the 2007 DVD, none all too exciting. Marshall provides a commentary track that has plenty of his trademark laconic humor. There are several deleted scenes, including three variations on the ending, and a gag reel. A seven-minute making-of featurette is included, as well as the original theatrical trailer, a six-minute short spotlighting the three actresses and a five-minute tribute to Marshall.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm a huge fan of Ivan Reitman-I loved Evolution and who didn't like Ghostbusters? From the trailer you already know that Uma's character will get dumped by Luke's.So the build-up is obviously towards the moment when she unleashes her superpowers on him.But the pay-off is just not there.The shark tossing did manage to get a (slight) giggle but once again, it was all in the trailer.

No one does breathless quite like Uma and Luke is diet Owen on his good days.If not for Riann Wilson you would sit there with a constipated smile until your cheeks start to cramp.This is a comedy,right?

It's not awful-it just sits there like a stale cracker behind the fridge.This could have been such a brilliant send-up of Superhero movies and Feminism but fails on both counts.Let's see if Jason Reitman can salvage the family name.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I had my doubts about another love story wherein disabled individuals find meaning and redemption through honest communication. And it's still not at the top of my list. But the performances from Helena Bonham Carter and Kenneth Branagh and exemplary, almost stunning, and rescue this from being just another tear-jerker. Carter's depiction of an ALS victim is strong, perhaps even overdone at times (sometimes her dialog dissolves into undistinguishable mutterings). But the overall effect is commendable and rewarding. Branagh may be the perfect compliment to her performance.

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

Answer:
Jackie Chan's classic directorial feature POLICE STORY (1985) is among the most influential and over-the-top modern day police actioners ever to come out from Hong Kong. Jackie wanted simply to make a movie which would include the usual kung fu and also fierce gun play and other "urban" action which would later become very popular and typical among HK directors like John Woo and Ringo Lam. POLICE STORY mixes these two action elements and styles and the result is as wild as it sounds.

Jackie plays Chan Ka-Kui, a police who gets to protect an important witness (Brigitte Lin) who would soon testify against a powerful gangster boss and his ring of criminal activity. Jackie's girlfriend is played by young and sweet Maggie Cheung, who isn't as wild here as she would be in her subsequent roles like Heroic Trio (and the sequel) by Johnnie To, Savior of the Soul by Corey Yuen and David Lai and many many others. The plot in POLICE STORY is very simple but it is the action why this film was made in the first place.

Jackie did of course all the stunts of his character by himself and also hurt himself pretty badly in couple of scenes, some of which are also in the completed movie like at the end in which Jackie hits his head (near the eye) through a very nasty looking sharp piece of glass. Also Jackie's stunt team members almost got themselves killed during filming of this film. The scene in which a bus stops right before Jackie, spitting the kidnappers through the windshield, went really bad as the bus stopped too early and the stuntmen didn't fly as they were supposed to. They were supposed to fly on the car parked in the front of the bus but their flight was too short and they hit through the asphalt with hospital level injuries. During the end credits, there is a behind the scenes imagery and images of these injured actors and it all looks really bad and almost tasteless, but fortunately no one got killed or injured too severely.

The action is more than plentiful and imaginative as can be expected by (action) director Chan. The now legendary bus scene and shopping mall scene at then end are most likely among the wildest scenes any action film has been able to deliver. Jackie always tells how important editing is (which is true) and it really shows in his action scenes and their timing which is perfect and makes the films look so ultra kinetic when compared to Hollywood efforts, for instance. There's hardly any slow moments here and also those moments are interesting and the film never becomes boring or hard to watch.

But there is again one negative point which I cannot stand in HK action comedies, which is this comedy itself. The comedy isn't funny especially when the errors and amateurish elements in the screenplay aren't there by accident but because of the writer wanted to add them there, without necessarily understanding that they are signs of bad script and stupid dialogue. I mean those scenes like the stabbing murder attempt at the beginning when the murderer just shouts and screams and makes faces and acts like a drunken clown from some slapstick nightmare, and he is there to "murder" that girl. This kind of acting is stupid and inept and I wouldn't like to see it in a film which is otherwise very great in its own genre. Characters also speak their thoughts which is also a sign of bad script because those "loud thoughts" are there just to make things clear even for the stupidest viewer and thus making things way too simple and "light." Even if the film is comic and not so serious, these kind of stupidities should not be there and they cannot be forgiven too easily.

POLICE STORY is a fast speed, full impact, balls to the walls action adventure miracle from Hong Kong and from the time when Jackie was very sad because of the bad result he got with the US produced The Protector as he didn't have the same thoughts about the film as director James Glickenhaus had and thus the result didn't please audiences and Jackie and he returned to Hong Kong to make more personal and inventive film. That he definitely did and the result is as wild today as it was back then in the 80's. This is among the most insane action films ever, and it would be somewhat perfect without the flaws I mentioned. 7/10