Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.

Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.

This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8 minutes too long.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Those of you who know the group dEUS, know the lead singer Tom Barman. He directed this movie a bit like he creates music, it's a mix of everything. This is a comedy, though mostly absurd and cynical, a drama, none of the main characters have a happy life to say the least, and it does not really have a goal.

The movie starts on a friday morning in Antwerp, Belgium, with scenes of several persons, some of them have nothing in common but they will come in contact with each other during the day and night. There are several main characters: a teacher who writes books nobody reads, a young researcher with a morbid taste of death and his sister, a gallery owner, two young men constantly in touch with the law, a man who works in a movie theater and two young women. Throughout the movie there walks a man who has something to do with wind. All characters have their troubles, with their family or friends or just with life itself.

The movie is set in Antwerp and shows several beautiful shots of the city and the port. The events of the day are not easily explained, I advise to simply watch the movie, there is simply too much to tell. But I can say this, Barman has an excellent use of the camera and uses a lot of music (mostly dance music, not really rock) to set a mood, especially the party is filled with excellent music.

This movie is an experience on itself, it will not leave you any wiser about life, perhaps only that you have to live it and not waste it, or have any false moral truths.

In short, see it, it is definitely worth it!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.

But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.