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

Answer: Oh where to begin. The cinematography was great. When the movie first started because of the initial landscape scenes I thought that I was in for a good movie. Then the cgi Bigfoot showed up .It looked like a cartoon drawing of the Lion king and king Kong's love child.It totally took away from the believability of the character.Now I knew there wasn't a Bigfoot chasing people hiking around the woods for no apparent reason but a cheesy cgi cartoon.So from then on the whole movie was shot for me.The money they flushed down the toilet for the cgi they could of spent on a costume like roger Patterson did. His was the best Bigfoot costume ever no one else could match his.I am a hardcore cheesy Bigfoot movie fan and I was warned about this movie but my compulsion led me to watching this movie and I was disappointed like the previous reviews warned me about. I know after you read this review you will still say "I must watch Sasquatch hunters,must watch Sasquatch hunters." Then you will say why did I waste my good hard earned money on such a excruciatingly bad boring movie!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: All logic goes straight out of the train window in this British horror film, set in the London underground and starring the usually reliable Franka Potente (Run Lola Run), Franka plays Kate, a businesswoman on the way from an office party to meet friends who falls asleep at an underground station, only to wake up and find she has been locked in and finds herself being chased by "someone" or "something" with killer intentions.

Plot holes and unbelievability are rife and there are very few moments that are actually jumpy/ scary but plenty that are just plain dull.

All in all an unpleasant film that should just stay locked underground forever and do us all a favour.

The only plus point here is the inclusion in the cast of popular veteran actor Ken Campbell, who's done better than this that's even including "Erasmus Microman"!.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.

The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.

I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me it really doesn't matter anyway.

Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.

I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
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.