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

Answer: Really, everybody in this movie looks like they want to be someplace else! No wonder, the casting is done not with the left hand, but rather not at all. I haven't seen anything worse than Natascha McElhone impersonating some sort of agent, carrying a gun. You don't use a spoiled city-brat-look in such a role. The only worse thing I can imagine is casting Doris Day as a prostitute. The rest of the cast is likewise awful, possibly with Hurt as the sole exception, sometimes you can see him trying, but suffering. Oh, did I mention that it is a completely insane story? Jeopardizing many peoples lives because you are divorced and want to see your family? Well, it must be because the guy (Weller) is German?

2/10, because the photography could be worse.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is sad this movie is the tops this should at least be in the top 250 movies here. This is still the best Action movie ever done. The action movies of today are badly done The actors and action directors do not no how to do it fighting and stunts properly. only some no how to do it mostly from Hong Kong like Jackie Chan. The stunts are so clever and wild i do not think we will see the likes of ever. The start where Chan and his team go down the hill car chase through the hill town is just amazing. The end fight stunts are for me the best fight stunts ever put to film. The end stunt sliding down the pole crashing through the glass Jackie was badly hurt.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.

That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted.

So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.

This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.

What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.

The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).

The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie has everything you want from an action movie. Explosions,shootouts,bad guys and worse guys. It is fun to see James Belushi using his humor to get out of the trouble he has gotten himself in to since he stole 12 million dollars from the ultimate big boss "The Skipper. Does this sounds cheesy. Of course it is. But boy,did I have fun watching this movie. It is a whole lot better than all the direct to DVD garbage that is made nowadays. If you can get over the silly plot than you will find out that this movie has quite a few surprises in store. You could argue about the twists being predictable. But the fast pace of this movie doesn't give you time too think too much of them,which is a blessing since this movie is not about revealing the ultimate twist. But more about the journey to that moment. Only the title is a bit misleading and that could be the reason why so many people hated this movie. They probably expected a movie about mobsters in stead of some crooks double crossing each other. Pure fun!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.

All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.

1/10