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

Answer: Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.

To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.

Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.

I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I know I should like this film, and I do for the most part, but as other's have mentioned, it is a bit long in the tooth. I to also found the raging hormones of the all male crew to be a bit annoying. It's a wonder they didn't start panting and howling at the moons as well. I also have to say that overall, the movie leaves me cold. It's a very sterile atmosphere that permeates the film. On the plus side the effects are great (besides the cartoon monster), as are the effects, props, costumes and of course Robbie. If the robot was not in this film, I don't think it would have been as popular as it was/is. The second half of the movie picks up steam once we start to investigate the forgotten gadgets of the "Krell." As many times as I've seen this movie, the Krell still leaves me scratching my head as to exactly who or what they were. Based on what was being produced at that time, besides "This Island Earth," Forbidden Planet is miles above the average Sci-Fi movies of the time. Being filmed in color also adds to its enjoyment. Certainly a classic in its own right, flaws and all, and deservedly so.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.

This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is "Movie Movie," with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.

This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.

We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, "The Municipalians," which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of "The New Centurians" and some "Dirty Harry", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after "Animal House" to have the "National Lampoon" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget "comedy" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.

Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature. The only reason i watched this piece of garbage is because it was on that 8 disc horror set i got. The plot is preposterous and totally stupid as is the finale. No blood what so ever except a few bloody marks on the creature, and a couple of bloody gunshot wounds. The acting is TERRIBLE!!. Richard Cardella is terrible as the sheriff and was quite laughable plus his character is annoying. Glen Roberts is the comic relief and was not funny at all!. Mark Siegel is extremely annoying and was also NOT FUNNY!. Bob Hyman is decent but not much more then that. Richard Garrison is annoying and had no chemistry with Kacey Cobb what so ever. Kacey Cobb is so so here and had no chemistry with Richard. Overall Avoid this piece of garbage at all costs! BOMB out of 5.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
If you thought that the original from 83 was bad then try out this modern day masterpiece. How could it be worse more you ask? Well...at least in the first one you had Ally Sheedy jogging in a sports bra. Other than updated graphics, modern day themes (such as terrorists), modern weapons and a sexy new voice for Ripley unfortunately this is the same sad tired story. Anyone that saw the first one could see exactly where the next scene / line in the story was going. And for anyone that didn't see the first one...well consider yourself lucky that you only watched it once. Maybe in another 23 years Hollywood will try again.