Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Admittedly, Parsifal is not an opera that can appeal to everyone, although it is a favourite of mine, Knappertsbusch, 1951, in particular. Syberberg's entire approach is so static. Whenever the music suddenly begins to swell ... Syberberg keeps the cast moving at the same pace. The takes on Amfortas and Klingsor are endless. Whatever happened to film editing? The result is physically exhausting to watch. The viewer is never spiritually transported. Your impulse is to rush home and play a recording again to confirm that Wagner got it right, Syberberg got it wrong. And that set decoration with those "clever" reminders of Wagner's anti-Semitism -- will there ever be a viewer of this film with no prior knowledge of Wagner?
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In 1594 in Brazil, the Tupinambas Indians are friends of the Frenches and their enemies are the Tupiniquins, friends of the Portugueses. A Frenchman (Arduino Colassanti) is captured by the Tupinambas, and in spite of his trial to convince them that he is French, they believe he is Portuguese. The Frenchman becomes their slave, and maritally lives with Seboipepe (Ana Maria Magalhaes). Later, he uses powder in the cannons that the Portuguese left behind to defeat the Tupiniquins in a battle. In order to celebrate the victory, the Indians decide to eat him.

"Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances" is another great low budget movie of the great Brazilian director Nelson Pereira dos Santos. The screenplay is very original and the story is spoken in Tupi. The film is shot using natural light most of the time and is very realistic. The actors and actresses perform naked and Ana Maria Magalhaes is magnificent, showing a wonderful body and giving a stunning performance. The sound is produced by the Brazilian musician Ze Rodrix. This movie shows the beginning of the exploitation of my country by Europeans, focusing in the Portuguese and French at that time, trading with the Indians and exchanging combs and mirrors by our natural resources. This movie was awarded in the national festivals, such as the 1971 Brazilian Cinema Festival of Brasilia (Festival de Brazilia do Cinema Brasileiro) with Best Screenplay (Nelson Pereira dos Santos), Best Dialog (Nelson Pereira dos Santos and Humberto Mauro) and Best Cenograph (Regis Monteiro); Art Critics Association of Sao Paulo (Associacao Paulista dos Criticos de Arte), with best Revelation of the Year (Ana Maria Magalhaes) and some other prizes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances" ("How Tasty Was My Frenchman")
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A pale shadow of a great musical, this movie suffers from the fact that the director, Richard Attenborough, completely misses the point of the musical, needlessly "opens" it up, and muddies the thrust of the play. The show is about a group of dancers auditioning for a job in a B'way musical and examines their drive & desire to work in this demanding and not-always-rewarding line of work. Attenborough gives us a fresh-faced cast of hopefuls, assuming that they are trying to get their "big break" in show business, rather than presenting the grittier mix of characters created on stage as a group of working "gypsies" living show to show, along with a couple of newcomers. The film has one advantage over the play and that is the opening scene, showing the size of the original audition and the true scale of shrinkage down to the 16/17 on the line (depending on how you count Cassie, who is stupidly kept out of the line in the movie). Anyone who can catch a local civic light opera production of the play will have a much richer experience than seeing this poorly-conceived film.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Arthur Askey's great skill as a comic was in the way he communicated with his public. His juvenile jokes, silly songs and daft dances went down well because he was able to engage folk and draw them into his off the wall world. A lack of a live audience was a distinct disadvantage to him, and he was never completely comfortable in films. He has his moments in The Ghost Train, and his character, Tommy Gander, has been tailored to make the most of his talents, but Askey the performer needed to be seen to be appreciated.

Askey's support in the film is not strong, it includes regular co-star Richard Murdoch; Betty Jardine and Stuart Latham as a dopey honeymoon couple; Linden Travers going over the top as a 'mad woman'. Also on board are Peter Murray-Hill, who off-screen married Phyllis Calvert, as the nominal leading man, giving a totally bland reading of the part, and leading lady Carol Lynne, who turns in an equally insipid performance. It is left to character actress Kathleen Harrison to effortlessly steal the film as a parrot loving single woman who gets smashed on Dr Morland Graham's brandy.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I was curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.

What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me" Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.