An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This was incredible, meaning that it was hard to believe, that the "forgotten tribe" would make this astounding migration twice a year, and that the filmmakers, Cooper and Schoedsack, didn't stage some of the scenes and shots. But what shots they are! The cinematography, under mostly extreme conditions, is brilliant, and the score of Iranian music added to the video release give this memorable documentary an added richness.

I had the pleasure of seeing this and "Kon Tiki" on the same weekend, which was a thrill and certainly made me see how tough and hardy and brave people can be, whether for primitive survival or the need for adventure or in the name of science.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Impressed! This is the worst SRK movie and one of the worst Bollywood movies I ever saw! I didn't like the novel, but this movie made it worse! Very bad music, even worse actors (apart from SRK of course, though even he doesn't manage to save the movie), and not much sense. The director makes it all look very confusing, God knows why... Maybe it's because he's trying to make it all look very surrealistic, and yet credible. Well, he manages neither.

Even if you've got a few hours to loose, don't watch this movie, please! (Saying this for your own welfare!) Keep searching, you will find something else to watch!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.

A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.

first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.

verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.

It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"

follow?

lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.

It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.

My Grade:D-

Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.

Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass