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

Answer: After the superb AANKHEN(2002) which was a remake of a Gujarati play he comes with WAQT which too looks like a stage play

In stage plays, we have characters shouting, overacting here too the same

The first half shows Amitabh almost kidding the 40+ Akshay Kumar who acts too funny like a small nerd

The film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way Amitabh wants to make Akki responsible is absolutely fake

Even his reason for hiding his sickness, his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by Akki is a put off

Some emotions do touch you but most are too over the top

Rajpal's comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half

Direction by Vipul Shah is too overdone though some scenes are good Music is okay

Amongst actors Amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes Akshay Kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes His chemistry with Bachchan is matchless Rajpal is a highlight, he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot Boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places Priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do, this is her last film with Akki so far Shefali is awesome though she looks too young for Bachchan
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: WOW, this movie was so horrible. I'm so glad i didn't have to pay money to see this horrible movie. it was like a history nut went on a coke binge! the previews of it made it look decent but it was REALLY bad. i will say the idea sounded decent but come on. it was really really bad. If u sat down and thought about it you would also realize it was UNREALISTIC. come on back in the day u think they had all that stuff to work with. It wasn't like ben franklin sat down one day and made a damn riddle. it was completely ridiculous, and it you want to see a bad movie then by all means go see this one. All and ALL HORRIBLE movie it might actually be on my top 10 WORST films I've ever seen.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie had a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't."
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Basically a typical propaganda film for the last good war. But there were a couple things that struck me. First was the use of mouthed epithets. In two cases the Scott character mouths one, once at the beginning when he drops his bomb off target during the bomb-off ("dammit") and once when he is trying to sway a bombardier into being a pilot ("s*%t"). I could be wrong about the second instance but I replayed it several times and that's what it looks like to me. The third case is when the Anne Shirley character wishes the O'Brien character goodbye and good luck ("Give 'em hell") over the roar of the engines. She must have thought that was too unladylike because she clearly says "heck". I also found interesting the character that has moral problems with bombing, specifically bombing civilians. The avuncular superior officer assures him that only military targets will be hit due to the precision of the bombsight used. Given what we know about the LeMay's later strategy of firebombing Japanese cities into oblivion this scene plays with not a little irony. I remember McNamara's quoting of LeMay in "The Fog of War", something to the effect that if the US did not win the conflict he would be tried as a war criminal. The ending is way overwrought, in keeping with the movie. It reminded me a bit of the end of White Heat (I'm not comparing the films, just the ending!). Maybe it's just 'cause he gets blowed up. Blowed up real good!!!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I didn't expect much from this, but I have to admit I was rolling on the ground laughing a few times during this film. If you are not grossly offended in the first ten minutes, this might be a film for you. Ditto if you are the type that would enjoy watching Amanda Peet shuffling cards for an hour and a half. It's certainly not a momentous work of comedy, but given the low-budget indy genesis this is masterful. To level the playing field for comparison, imagine all of the studio films with their budgets slashed by a factor of 100 or so and see what you get! Kudos to Peter Cohen and his network for seeing this through. I look forward to his next effort.