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

Answer: This is not only one of the greatest Jackie Chan films, but also one of the greatest kung-fu movies of all time.

We've come to expect crazy stunts, and fast, creative action in Chan's movies, and this one set the benchmark for others to follow. It's two hours of pure entertainment, that impresses all the way through.

As well as the superb action, we have a viable storyline and believable characters, with Chan taking what appears to be a more western approach to the writing, mixing eastern resolution methods (ie kicking ass).

Overall, it's funny, serious, entertaining and groundbreaking. A must for any kung-fu fan, whilst at the same time remaining accessible to the wider reaches of the film community.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This film was the most longest film and the record breaking film for sure It had 30 actors After JAANI DUSHMAN(2002) i guess no one had the guts to do something like that

The film as the title suggests is based on the Kargil war but the problem is there are too many characters and the romantic subplots and the songs of many characters are boring

Even there are too many cinematic liberties like killing people with knifes, wonder which soldier does that?

Direction by JP Dutta pales front of BORDER Music is okay

Amongst the huge cast Ajay Devgan stands tall, Saif is very good in his part and also it's his first film with kareena, Abhishek is likable Manoj Bajpai has his moments Sanju is wasted, Suneil is okay Akshaye Khanna does his part well rest are passable Rani is good, Esha is okay rest are passable
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Excellent P.O.W. adventure, adapted by Eric Williams from his own book (a paperback copy of which forms part of my father's library) that was inspired by true events; it may well be the first film of its kind and, therefore, has a lot to answer for not just similarly stiff-upper-lipped examples such as ALBERT, R.N. (1953; which I'll be watching presently), THE COLDITZ STORY (1955) and DANGER WITHIN (1959) but higher-profile releases from the other side of the Atlantic, namely STALAG 17 (1953) and THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963). This, then, sets the basis pretty solidly: British soldiers interned in a German camp devise an ingenious plan of escape, borrowing a page from Greek legend burrowing from under a vaulting horse used during physical exercise and in full view of their captors! Actually, the film is neatly split into two halves: the first deals with the slow process of digging the tunnel, culminating in the escape itself, while the latter stages depict their fortunes outside the camp as they try to make it to neutral Sweden. Typically of these British films, the cast showcases several established (Leo Genn), current (Anthony Steel) and up-and-coming (Peter Finch, David Tomlinson and Bill Travers) stars, to say nothing of innumerable reliable character actors (Anthony Dawson, Bryan Forbes, Michael Goodliffe and Walter Gotell). The three leads/escapees are Genn, Steel and Tomlinson: while the first two stick together, the latter goes his own way only to run into the others on reaching safety. As can be expected, the narrative involves plenty of suspense and excitement; as with most male-centered P.O.W. sagas, too, female interest is kept to the barest minimum. Director Lee didn't have a lengthy career with this and the somewhat similar (albeit with a change of both setting and viewpoint) A TOWN LIKE ALICE (1956) his most noteworthy achievements but he certainly milked every gripping situation in this case (even if, reportedly, delays in filming saw Lee quitting his post prematurelyleaving producer Ian Dalrymple with the task of tying up loose ends!). Anyway, worth special mention is the exquisite lighting (particularly during night-time sequences) throughout.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes! most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a 8 out of 10 but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Despite reading the "initial comments" from someone who curiously disliked the film -- (WHY IS THE ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT VERY FIRST ON THE LIST?)it was very nice to note that virtually everyone else loved it! Obviously the Church wanted to stress certain points and portray the prophet Joseph Smith in a positive manner ~ thats the whole idea. And in fact, those points were extremely effective. We already know Joseph Smith was human... but despite that, AND all of the horrific negative attempts stirred on by the adversary, it showed just how he was able to complete a remarkable, God-given work. I'd recommend it to anyone!