Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: A bad rip-off attempt on "Seven", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them "sex offenders", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.

No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.

The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.

Unlike "Seven", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about "sex offenders" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.

There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.

Don't waste time on this one.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with "Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and cliched, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: One of John Ford's best films 'The Informer' doesn't feature any grand scenery of the American West. Instead the intense drama Ford was known for plays out on the no less rugged terrain of British character actor Victor McLaglen's face. The former prizefighter, who once faced Joe Louis in the ring, delivers an Academy Award-winning portrayal of disgraced IRA soldier Gypo Nolan on the worst night of his life.

The plot is gracefully simple: In 1922 Dublin, a starving and humiliated man who's been thrown out of the IRA for being unable to kill an informant in cold blood, himself becomes an informant. For 20 he betrays a friend to "the Tans" and for the rest of the night he drinks and gives away his blood money in rapidly alternating spasms of guilt, denial, self-pity, and a desperate desire to escape the consequences of his actions.

It is the remarkable complexity given to the character of the seemingly simple Gypo that is the film's most impressive achievement. In most movies a burly lout of Gypo's type would be cast as the heavy, he'd have at best two or three lines and be disposed of quickly so the hero and the villain could have their showdown. In 'The Informer' Gypo himself is both hero and villain, while the showdown is in his inner turmoil, every bit of which is explicitly shared with the audience.

Because Liam O'Flaherty's novel had previously been filmed in 1929, RKO gave Ford a very modest budget. The director and his associates, particularly cinematographer Joseph H. August, turned this to their advantage in creating a claustrophobic masterpiece about a man at war with himself. In addition to McLaglen's Oscar 'The Informer' also won John Ford his first along with wins for Best Screenplay and Best Score.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: this film was totally not what i expected.

if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two.

its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up.

carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail.

the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .

i really expected it to end like the other one started.

if some one has a opinion on this post it please.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This is a great Canadian comedy series. The movie tells of how the stars Jean Paul Tremblay-(Julian) and the head writer of the show and his buddies Rickie and Bubbles play it over the top in what is a true life satirical look at trailer parks and the denizens of said trashy hoods. The movie will tell you why Rickie and Julian begin doing their more advanced forays into the world of crime. WHY and the reasons behind everything would be a spoiler so I shall not give the real reasons behind their more brilliant escapades. Their friend and oft-time partner(Bubbles) is a brilliant character. The whole show is brilliant and missing the movie will not affect the way you see the sit-com one bit. It is a comedy with a capital C and a brilliant satire on trailer park living and small time crooks with small time ideas but big time dreams. If you ever have the opportunity to watch--buy--steal this program grab it. You will be glad you did. And to my American friends---It will break you up also. 10 out of 9. Brilliant. TV how TV should be.