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

Answer: Halloween is a film I have to get out and watch every time it's THAT day of the year.I even watch it sometimes when it's not the holiday!!!This film is SO great.Jamie Lee Curtis is an actress I can never stop loving.This movie might be old,but the story line still gets me right there every time,and the acting was absolutely fantastic!!!Although I have not seen the remake,I feel already that it was TOTALLY unnecessary.I think Rob Zombie should have NEVER remade such a classic.What kills me though,is to know that there are some people out there who have seen the remake without even hearing of the original.I am getting furious just thinking about it!!!!!!This movie was great,and it will always be remembered in history as a classic.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I am a fan of animal movies. If you can take a plot and put animals as the main actors you will usually win me over. Homeward Bound did just this. They took a plot that has been as old as time and put a new spin to it. It was a complete success. It is very much an archetypal movie. You have the obi-wan of the group(shadow) who is wise and logical, you have the lovable but impetuous and untrusting Chance, and the prissy princess who thinks that she should be pampered and praised. These three personalities bounce off of each other very well. I also like how they made Chance and Sassy such dynamic characters, and they did not overdue it. Most people say that it cannot be good because it is too much of a kids film. What they are forgetting, however, is that it is supposed to be a kids film, and this still does not take away from the acual movie. This is a good movie to watch when you are bored and you just want to watch a movie. It is a Disney movie without the cartoons, an air bud movie with a better plot. I would, without a doubt, advise you to watch it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:

Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.

Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.

One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.

More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.

This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.

Hollow!!!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?

The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).

The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space.

This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.

There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie was very, very strange and very, very funny. All of the actors are quite real and very odd. The overall "look" of the film was different, too, sort of dreamy and bleached-out, which only added to the spacey, fumbling, weird vibe of the whole thing.

It's not for everyone, I mean, it's not what you would call "mainstream" but that is what I liked about it. It's unlike anything I have ever seen before . . . unpredictable, with a weird rhythm and punch lines in the strangest places. The kids are so heartbreakingly goofy (and pimply) that you can't help but feel for them. In other words, these are far from "hollywoodized" versions of teenagers.

All of, which for me, makes it a good thing.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.

Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.

Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.

There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer