Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Budget, decent actors ...who knew these things were important. Don't waste your time on this piece of junk. The effects are crap. The acting is crap. The only thing that could have made this even tolerable was a little cheap T&A and that gets squandered in the first 20 minutes.

The only even remotely redeeming quality about this movie is the very awkward profanity. It was like they found the only 7 people on the planet who have never cursed before. Hats off!

If you want to see some dude in a bad suit just go back and look at old prom photos. The only way for a Bigfoot flick to be any good is for it to have a big budget and some actors who didn't come from Frogballs Community Theater.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: 'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I never much liked the Myra movie, tho I appreciate how it pushed the Hollywood envelope at the time. Certainly Miss Welch's costume became an iconic image, though I have to wonder if many people who recognize the image really saw the film and know what it was all about -

I rewatched Myra on FMC a couple of years ago and didn't think it had aged any better thru the years. There's a segment about it in the Sexploitation Cinema Cartoon History comic books, where it's given proper credit for putting such big stars in what was then an outrageous production. However, IMHO, the movie is too bitter to be charming, too silly to be a turn-on, and so busy trying to shock that it fails to inform, engage, OR entertain ---
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Although I can understand the bad things someone has to say about this movie, I still found it to be absolutely amazing. It will touch you, and unless your a critic searching deep into the flaws and mishaps of every movie, or you just simply aren't touched by anything, it is worth seeing. Don't come into the movie expecting anything, just have a box of tissues and an open mind. It is beautiful and the acting is brilliant. I think Will Smith, despite that he's yet again playing another lonely depressed individual, is amazing. I believe a good actor is someone who can truly portray feelings and emotions we all have at our worst/best experiences in such a way that it reaches out to you and makes YOU feel something. And that's exactly what this movie does. Give it a chance.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
What a piece of stupid tripe.

I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?

There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.

FOX has lost it, IMHO.