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

A: In Holland a gay writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe) gives a lecture. He stays overnight with a beautiful woman Christine (Renee Soutendijk) and has sex with her (by imagining she's a boy). He plans to leave the next day, but gets a look at a picture of Christine's hunky boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and decides to stay to have a try at him. Then things get strange.

A big X-rated art house hit in the US in 1983. Why was it X rated? Let's see...there's strangulation, full frontal male and female nudity, castration, mutilation, simulated sex, a scene in a church with a cross that will shock most people, a gay sex scene in a crypt...and it's all a comedy!!!!! Paul Verhoeven made this after "Spetters". "Spetters" was attacked by the critics for it's extreme sexual sequences and denounced as trash. So, Verhoeven filled this film with very obvious symbolism thinking the critics would think it was art and praise it. He was right! Critics loved the film not realizing that Verhoeven was playing a big joke on them. Still, it's a great film.

It's beautifully shot by Jan de Bont (now a director himself) and there's so much symbolism and obvious "hidden" layers in the dialogue that you're never bored. All the acting is great--Krabbe plays a thoroughly despicable character but (somehow) has you rooting for him; Soutendijk is just stunning to look at and plays her part to perfection--the little smile she gives when Gerard agrees to stay with her is chilling; Hoffman is extremely handsome with a great body--he deserves credit for doing the church sequence and going at with Krabbe in the crypt.

This is not for people easily offended or the weak of heart, but if you like extreme movies that playfully challenge you (like me) this is for you! A 10 all the way.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: (aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)

*spoiler*

This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.

The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.

Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.

But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.

Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.

The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever.

3 out of 10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I've really enjoyed this adaptation of "Emma".I have seen it many times and am always looking forward to seeing it again.Though it only lasts 107 minutes, most of the novel plot and sub-plots were developed in a satisfactory way. All the characters are well-portrayed. Most of the dialogues come directly from the novel with no silly jokes added as in Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility.

As a foreigner, I particularly appreciate the perfect diction of the actors. The setting and costumes were beautiful. I find this version quite on a par with the 1995 miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" but then the producer and screenwriter were the same. Kate Beckinsale did a really good job portraying "Emma" of whom Jane Austen said she would create a heroin no-one but her would love. She is snobbish but has just enough youth and inexperience to be still likable. Mark Strong was also very good at portraying Mr Knightley, not an easy part, I think, though he has not the charisma shown by Colin Firth's Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. Even the end scene (the harvest festival) which does not happen in the novel provides a fitting end except for when it shows Emma being cold and almost unpleasant with Frank Churchill whereas in the novel she was thoroughly reconciled with him, even telling him that she would have enjoyed the duplicity, had she been in his situation. A strange departure from the faithfulness otherwise shown throughout the film. I find the costumes more beautiful and elaborate than in other adaptations from Jane Austen's novels.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Add Paulie the parrot to beloved movie animal characters. This movie is a love story - bird and Gena Rowlands, Bird and beloved Marie, Michael and Marie. A Russian janitor helps a talking and thinking parrot find his rightful owner many years after Marie's parents sell him to a pawn shop. Before the heart warming ending we learn all the misadventures of Paulie. Cheech Marin and his dancing parrots are marvelous. Beautiful photography throughout. Great little movie, word of mouth will make it a cult favorite.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity