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

Answer: Unless you understand wretched excess this movie won't really mean much to you. An attempt was made to interject a bit of humanity into a cold and bleak period consumed by alcohol and drugs -- it doesn't work.

When Salma Hayak does her big disco number her voice is so obviously dubbed it is pathetic -- the producers could at least have gotten someone that sounded remotely like her.

The documentary that has been playing on television lately is far superior and gives a much truer view of that period of our history.

No one, with the exception of Mikey Myers, could be accused of acting; however, he does an incredible job.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, "The Money Pit".

If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What a horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.

BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 out of 10.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have seen it & i like it Melissa plays her part well. It was actually believable. My brother in law saw it with my sister & i and when i mentioned to my sister that i forgot it was based on a true story (i had seen it a few years ago.) he said just because its on lifetime you think its true & both my sister & i were like it was so anyway i was wondering if anyone knew what murder it was or like who was really involved was because i want to prove it to him. I love lifetime movies especially the ones that are true, or just the ones that teach a good lesson. I thought I saw something about it a week ago but i cant remember where any help would be appreciated.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, "The book was better." I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers.

Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.

With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.

Of course the movie is "good," the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.