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

Answer: In the glory days of the 90s (god rest its soul) you could turn on the great Comedy Central at any hour of the day and see the greatest sketch comedy show of all time Saturday Night Live. Whpat a glorious show that was, whether it was the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players or the second golden age of SNL featuring the greats- Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade... and then, it all went to hell. I was first exposed to MadTV about a year and a half ago, and I think I must've passed out from shock. How could a show so terrible prevail for so long? There are so many horrible flaws. I suppose I'll start with the writing. The writing, for most part, is terrible. It is nothing more than kindergarten bathroom humor. The cast, for the most part, is talentless. There are a few sketches I have enjoyed, such as some of Ms. Swan and Stuart, and there are a few talents on the show such as the magnificent Alex Borstein. Phil LaMarr is a talented actor, just not as a comedian. Although there a few sparse ha ha moments, they are not enough to redeem this endless line of horrible drivel populated by babbling idiots. Miss this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice ("we are all special friends"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I think that that creator(s) of this film's concept deserves a lot more accolades than they probably ever received. It isn't an Oscar caliber film of course, but, at least for me, this film has left a lasting impression since I first saw it back in 1984 (in the theatre).

I don't think this is (and hope it isn't) a spoiler, but: imagine acting on your impulses. Doing the first thought that pops into your head, saying the first words on your lips... No restraint, no conscious, nothing holding you back from saying or doing the things that, as intelligent adults, we know we shouldn't actually say or do. If anything, this film only scratches the surface - It doesn't go as far as it could go.

In a time when Hollywood seems obsessed with remaking older "classics" to try and cash in on today, wouldn't it be nice to see them remake an older film of modest success, for the sake of taking it to the next level? A bit further, or even to explore what the original crew didn't, wouldn't or couldn't deal with 20 years ago?

That's just my opinion anyway. :o)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.

The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.

Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.

First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.

First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.

Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.

Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.

Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know...
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Kureishi hasn't exactly been blessed with movies that justify the quality of his writing. Recent adapted travesty's like 'Intimacy' have ruined great writing. But The Mother surpasses all his previous incarnations, eclipsing even My Beautiful Laundrette. A middle-aged woman overcomes widow-hood by having a very carnal relationship with the boyfriend of her emotionally-weak daughter. The fact that you believe all this is credit to the quality of the acting as it is to the finite gift of the writing. And in Daniel Craig we have a strutting, brash, gruff anti-hero who denies the audience to ever question why a young stud would contemplate bedding a sagging grandmother. Beautifully shot, the film fails only in the weak depiction of the peripheral characters, but as a study of inconceivable lust, it's a winner.