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

A: This is one of the best films ever made. It is a realistic depiction of rural ranching life which was a big part of American History. The setting is 1906 Wyoming where life had not changed much since the previous century. The film keeps your interest without the added Hollywood myths. The whole family can see this movie and be intrigued about how life was like in America when it was mostly a rural nation. With this film, you will escape the present and witness the daily life of 100 years ago. In a beautiful, scenic environment you will see the hard physical work that was required to survive, as well as the constant worries and concerns of the elements and the market pressures that will make a difference between success or failure. See this movie and experience life as it was for most of our nation's history. This film is worth your time to see. My only question is - why aren't there more films like this one?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It was difficult to sit through this horrible heretical adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Apparently Matt Frewer was cast because he is tall and skinny. His skull-like face made for a good zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake, but as Sherlock Holmes he looks like a scarecrow. Not only does Frewer have a lanky lackadaisical walk that is hard to watch, but he looks uncomfortable in the stereotypical Holmes overcoats that he is wearing. Not only that, but while the coat is gray twill they apparently could not find a matching cap. So his cap is black and it looks shiny as if it were made of polyester. Whatever the cap was made of, it looked very new and artificial. Jeremy Brett occasionally wore those traditional outfits, but Brett did not have to dress-up like Sherlock Holmes in order to look the part. Frewer on the other hand is painful to watch. Even in the full "Holmes" outfit, he does not carry himself like Sherlock Holmes.

Frewer's cadaverous face grinning all the time as he spouts on and on in a very bad "Upper-Crust" British accent is painful to see and listen to. To say that Frewer is overacting is an understatement. After he finishes each sentence with some kind of nasal hum, he then sneers as if that were some kind of British trait. When I started watching this I thought it might be a comedy featuring Wishbone, the Jack Russell Terrier. I thought Frewer had been cast as some kind of foil for Wishbone. But sadly, there is no dog in this movie except for Frewer. Wishbone would have made this movie a lot better.

Not only does Frewer's version of Sherlock Holmes never stop talking (in that awfully artificial British nasal accent), but he is much to friendly and kind. Frewer is always smiling at the witnesses he talks to, and he is so polite and courteous that he could be teaching at a Charm School instead of being a Sleuth. Perhaps since this is a Hallmark Channel production, they are trying to make a children's version of Sherlock Holmes (Wishbone was better at that, too) that was kindler and gentler. Whatever the point of Frewer's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, it is flatter than a pancake, and easily the worst version of Sherlock Holmes that I have ever seen (including the previous worst, by Charlton Heston).

Overall, the tone of this film is awful. It reminded me of a typical episode of Barnaby Jones or Murder She Wrote or Diagnosis Murder. All the suspects over-acted suspiciously and glared at the victims before they were killed. Holmes and Watson are explaining every clue to each other during the entire movie. Even on Murder She Wrote there is less exposition.

This Sherlock Holmes does not even compare very well to Jim Rockford of the Rockford Files and it is miles below Columbo. The awful dialog is probably the fault of the writer. It is obvious that who ever wrote this script has very little familiarity with Sherlock Holmes, especially the BBC version with Jeremy Brett. This movie has all of the atmosphere of an episode of Little House on the Prairie. The fact that the actors seem to be smirking when they enunciate their lines in their fake accents does not help.

The only minor bright spot is Ken Walsh who plays Doctor Watson with some dignity. Walsh does not ham it up compared to Frewer, and when he is often interviewing witnesses, his demeanor and conversational style are much more natural and credible. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is amateurish, and the visual clues they give by glaring and making faces at each other (to show they are suspicious) is something that I had not seen in any modern movie.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I am SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and "Werewolf" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it "are only scared by gore", "Don't know good horror" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and "Makes you think"? Yeah, I was thinking "MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene!

P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.

.