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

A: An interesting TV movie based on true fact, betrayed by the description of one of the leading characters, that of a prisoner. Giovanni Ribisi plays his younger brother, who has the delicate mission of deciding if he will appeal to the courts for his brother's death penalty. But when he goes to visit him and enters Elias Koteas, the problem starts. It has nothing to do with Koteas' acting ability. He just looks like the version of a prisoner of proletarian roots according to "G.Q." magazine, with a language too sophisticated for someone who has spent most of his life behind bars. This realization came to me after meeting again an old friend, whom I had not seen for almost 15 years, which he spent in several Panamanian jails. The young man I used to know is gone, not only because he is older, but due to his exposure for a prolonged time to the penal system. There are jails and there are jails, one must say, but this one prisoner in "Shot In the Heart" is definitely out of this world.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is a CGI animated film based upon a French 2D animated series. The series ran briefly on Cartoon Network, but its run was so brief that its inclusion as one of the potential Oscar nominees for best animated film for this year left most people I know going "Huh?" This is the story of Lian-Chu, the kind heart muscle, and Gwizdo, the brains of the operation, who along with Hector their fire farting dragon,he's more like a dog. Travel the world offering up their services as dragon hunters but never getting paid. Into their lives comes Zoe, the fairy tale loving niece of a king who is going blind. It seems the world is being devoured by a huge monster and all of the knights the king has sent out have never returned or if the do return they come back as ashes. In desperation the king hires the dragon hunters to stop the world eater. Zoe of course tags along...

What can I say other then why is this film hiding under a rock? This is a really good little film that is completely off the radar except as unlikely Oscar contender. Its a beautifully designed, fantastic looking film (The world it takes place has floating lands and crazy creatures) that constantly had me going "Wow" at it. The English Voice cast with Forrest Whitaker as Lian-Chu (one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard) and Rob Paulson as Gwizdo (think Steve Bucsemi) is first rate. Equally great is the script which doesn't talk down to its audience, using some real expressions not normally heard in animated films (not Disney nor Pixar). Its all really well done.

Is it perfect? No, some of the bits go on too long, but at the same time its is damn entertaining.

If you get the chance see this. Its one of the better animated films from 2008, and is going on my nice surprise list for 2009.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: A lot of the user comments i have seen on the IMDB for this movie don't really do it justice. First of all, let me just say that this movie is not to be taken seriously. It's supposed to be a fun, yet stupid movie, that doesn't require one to think, only to enjoy it. If you watch this movie with the intent to see a masterpiece in either filmmaking or in humour, then you will be sorely disappointed. Yet, if you want to just watch a goofy movie with some talented actors/actresses, and some good catch-phrases, then you will enjoy it.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.

But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.

The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.

There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.

This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to "Mr & Mrs Iyer".

In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off.