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

A: A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...

Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.

Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.

Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.

Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.

Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: With the death of her infirmed husband, May, an older woman faces a future in an urban world that views her as invisible, dead from the neck down, and unwelcome in the pseudo- sophisticated yuppie homes of her son, Bobby and his shallow wife, Helen, and Paula, a self- absorbed, clinging, and minimally talented daughter. The central family is anything but warm, supportive, and understanding of her new and tragic stage in life with the death of her husband. The Mother is a quiet character study that points up how in some societies, the elder parent is both unwelcome and a burden to grown children whose careers and status seeking overshadow all else.

As May comes to realize the world is still important to her, the lonely widow finds her libido reawakened and alive with her daughter's boyfriend, a carpenter and rough sort. May embarks on an uninhibited sexual affair with Darren whose character is sympathetic to her at first, but his flawed nature is quickly revealed through the pressures of the women who surround him.

This is the kind of role Hollywood actresses of a certain age whine is never written for them, but would never appear in because the film's frankness, overt sexuality, unglamorous wardrobe, little makeup, and social commentary on the vapidness of the very society most film industry women are enchrenched. The performance by the lead actress, Anne Reid ranges from quiet to giddy and her interpretation blossoms on screen from the drab widow to a sexually alive and freed middle age woman without face-lift, hair extensions, and liposuction. She bares more than her soul for the screen.

Daniel Craig is the enabling handyman, Derrek who beds both mother and daughter. He turns in another stellar performance that is at first sympathetic to the widow's situation, but in the end is without redemption as his true nature unfold and he is literally the rooster in a hen-house. His aimless character's inability to say no to the ex-wife, boring girlfriend, and her mother is blamed as the root of his ineffectual existence. While good with his hands at building a conservatory, he is unable to construct meaning in his life.

One of the best films from Britain in years, it is simply adult in its storyline. The Mother is the rare kind of film that is perhaps too honest for American audiences to tolerate having no car chase, no bling, no rap soundtrack to drown out the cretin performances by TV starlets and buff studmuffins. The Mother reflects how the aging baby boomers are now disposable people that offspring are willing to overlook, send to the retirement home, and get out of the way. May doesn't know what to do as she is made alive by Darren, isn't willing to go to the old folks home, and finds her kids are more conservative than she ever was at their age.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.

I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.

We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.

I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: "Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?", which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.

The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.