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

Answer: Maybe it's because I looked up the history of the Irish troubles in the 1920s and then the sad Civil War that engulfed the Free State after the signing of the treaty before watching this movie. Anyway, the sudden turn at the end brought tears to my eyes.

Victor McLaglen isn't as famous today as he was back then, and he should be better remembered. In this film, I think he's playing himself as he would have been without his innate talent and brains. For example, the scenes where his buddy in the crowd is challenging men to fight with him is probably quite reminiscent of what McLaglen actually did in earlier years, when he was a world-class bare-knuckles boxer. John Ford is partly responsible for that; the IMDb trivia section shows how he tricked McLaglen into getting a really bad hangover for the trial scene. This director also could bring out a lot in his actors, even without such tricks. Mostly, though, McLaglen is firmly in control, especially when his character is almost totally blotto (which is difficult for an actor to do believably), and he also plays Gypo Nolan with a depth and emotional power that is surprising for someone who has only seen McLaglen later in his career, in "The Quiet Man." I especially like the contrast between this role as an IRA man and the much more obviously controlled performance he gave as the IRA man Denis Hogan in "Hangman's House."

In "The Quiet Man," of course, McLaglen is a country squire at odds with the local IRA. Victor McLaglen was big and bully, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but he was a good actor, too, and capable of wide range and fine nuances of performance that we just wouldn't expect of a such a man today. It's a rather sad comment on our own set of expectations and prejudices.

Ford, as usual, packs a lot into a little bit of film. All the characters are excellent (though the Commandant's mostly American accent is distracting) -- NOTE: There be spoilers ahead! -- Knowing that Gypo once drew the short straw and was ordered to kill a man but let him talk his way out of it instead, we really empathize with the man who draws the short straw for executing Gypo, and the humanity he shows, most notably when they go to take Gypo in Mary's room.

John Ford really shows his genius here, taking what could have been a gruesome and yet expected outcome to the whole story and instead using it to set up a totally unexpected and yet very satisfying ending that makes us think not just of Gypo and the other characters, but of poor Ireland during that tortured time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I need to be honest. I watched and enjoy this show because it was gross, offensive, hilarious, and raunchy. Yeah, there is a lot of humor for all tastes. If you are into the kind of humor that deals with making fun of people falling from skateboards, for example then you will have a great time for it.

Or, if you enjoy people on extreme stunt actions going bad, you will also have a great time. And if you enjoy scatological humor and extreme situations oh , you will enjoy the show.

I enjoy all three kinds of humor that "Dirty Sanchez" offers. I like to have a hard laugh with the situations of the show. "Jackass" is like a walk in the park compared to this one. So if you are tired of the typical American stupidity of Jackass, give it a try to English extreme stupidity on this show. With all due respect.

This is a show that has little taste or class. It's not recommended for those who are easily offended or grossed out.

Now, these guys need to see a psychologist. Specially the Paco character.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).

Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.

In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.

Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all "ambushees") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan "No, it's not" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.

But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).

It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way..
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
With title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. Acting bad. Script bad. Director bad. Grammar bad.

Movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. Movie make bad racial stereotype. Why come every movie with black hero have drug addict? Why come hero always have to dance to be success? Why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie? Why come letter "s" can't be in title?

Hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper English.

Do self favor and not go see.