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

Answer: The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.

And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.

???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.

Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: To all the haters out there: condemning a TV series with one episode is like judging an entire book after reading the first few pages. That being said, I was a huge fan of BSG, thought it was some of the best TV drama (not just sci-fi) on the air. But it was time for it to end and the story to move on. I liked the BSG epilogue "The Plan", but it raised as many new questions as it answered, so I eagerly anticipated "Caprica" and I was not disappointed.

I was hoping it would not try to be another BSG, and I was pleased that "Caprica" is something different, and I personally found the story exciting, in a different way than blazing space battles, explosions and sci-fi special effects (don't get me wrong, I like that stuff too). Eric Stolz and Esai Morales give solid performances, and Alessandra was just wonderful. I can't wait until next week.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down "depth charges" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment.

Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks "What did I do wrong?" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible.

Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: "Can you do this every day?" Emory is forced to nod "No" and the manager asks: "Then what were you trying to prove?" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day "We just spit in your eye." Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it.

This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Like his elder brothers, Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Corneau began to cut his teeth in French cinema with a series of fine thrillers: "la Menace" (1977) and "Serie Noire" (1979) among others. "Police Python 357" is a good example of how Corneau conceived and shot his works at this time of his career. They had a splendid cinematography, painstaking screenplays and a sophisticated directing elaborated for efficiency's sake.

The police superintendent Ferrot (Yves Montand) is a cop with unconventional methods who usually works all alone. He makes the acquaintance of a young woman Sylvia Leopardi (Stefania Sandrelli) and becomes her lover while ignoring that she has another lover: his superior Ganay (Francois Perier). When the latter learns it, he kills her in a fit of anger. Ferrot has to investigate the murder and all the clues are inexorably against him...

One could deem that this kind of far-fetched story isn't exempt from glitches and sometimes, one can see right through it but Corneau's pedantic directorial style helps to conjure up a stifling, dusky atmosphere. The first part of the film before the night of the murder might seem uninteresting and however, it is crucial for what will follow this key-moment. Corneau falls back on a sober treatment with rather sparse moments and short appearances by secondary, minor characters whom the viewer will see again during the investigation. In spite of drawbacks, Corneau and his scenarist Daniel Boulanger penned a deft story. Menard (Mathieu Carriere) who sometimes expresses his surprise because Ferrot keeps a relatively low profile during the investigation. But his superior knows that he usually works alone. Actually, Ferrot has to find solid tricks to muddy the waters and so to exonerate himself. Eventually, the chief idea of the film concerns Ferrot himself. He's a cop who bit by bit loses his identity and finds himself in the heart of a terrible depersonalization. It is epitomized by the moment when he throws himself acid on his face so that witnesses won't recognize him when he is brought face to face with them.

The backdrop of this thriller, Orleans is efficiently enhanced by Corneau's camera and helps to inspire this eerie thriller its pernicious charm.