Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I began riding horses fairly recently, and, as anyone who has ever ridden should know, I fell in love with horses and their world. I rented Spirit on a whim, just trying to pack my life full of as much horse related material as I could, and I was surprised by the results.

What I expected was a feel-good Disneyesque movie with talking animals and stereotypes every five minutes.

What I got was an amazing film, filled with beautiful scenery and animation, and an amazing storyline that has the great potential to warm one's heart.

Spirit is a wild mustang in the Old West, whose entire world is brought crumbling down around him when he discovers the humans slowly taking over his homeland. The story unfolds with a wide array of characters, some human, some animals, all are well written and most are pleasant to watch on screen.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story, and who has an appreciation for history and animals.

One thing I forgot to mention, but that I feel is important, is that the animals in this film do not talk. This was a really nice vacation from the Lady And The Tramp animated movies that everyone today is used to.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).

I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.

The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.

My Vote 4/10.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I grew up on the 'Superman II' theatrical version ("S2T") and as a kid, I loved it more than Part I since not only did it contain more Superman and three Superman-type villains, it started off with a bang the best Clark Kent to Superman transformations and rescue scenes. Kids no longer had to impatiently wait for Superman to appear on screen, as in part I. Now as an adult, I can see how the mighty had fallen with S2T (See: my review.) I've always heard of the back-story on how they prematurely and unjustifiably fired the original's director, Richard Donner from part II. (It must have been a rarity back then to film two separate movies simultaneously, now it's common: 'Back to the Future' and 'Matrix' 2 & 3 for example.) Unfortunately, after finally seeing the Richard Donner Cut (or, "S2RD") I still can't fully recommend it. Gone, was the great Superman change scene, the entire Paris rescue, as was the wonderful recap of part I in S2T's opening. In fact, they all but wrote the words: "Previously on Superman" in S2RD. The special effects weren't great in either Part I or S2T , but S2RD, they were mostly downright laughable such as Lois falling from the Daily Planet window. I will admit, some new scenes worked and some they took out were welcomed departures, such as any scene in the "honeymoon suite." Overall, if you grew up on S2T as I did, and loved it as a child not nitpicking as I do as an adult, you should absolutely see S2RD as it's almost a brand new childhood experience with dozens of new scenes. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately, the worst change comes last: gone was also the weird amnesia kiss from S2T replaced with the exact same ending as 'I.' This is not only a lazy, unoriginal copout, it doesn't make sense on why Clark would go back to that diner, if those events never actually happened. And will he continue to "turn back time" for every confrontation?
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.

If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: BEWARE SPOILERS. This movie was okay. Goldie Hawn and Chris Sarandon were the best two in it. Okay, so the goofie foreign guy who (SPOILER HERE) trades with the biker for his clothes was funny. This guy's boss was good, too. But the movie really belonged to Sarandon and Hawn. These two should have had a lot more time on screen together. They're chemistry was great. The bathroom scene-WOW! Romantic, sweet, yummy.

Hawn is a goofy cocktail waitress who saves a foreign man and ends up at the whitehouse in the middle of a plot due to the greed of politicians. To talk about Sarandon would be to give a lot away. SPOILERS This is a rather untypical romantic/political comedy, and it satisfies both somewhat-the political side a whole lot more than the romantic. It touches on political issues, and just barely skims on romantic areas.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
There isn't one decent scene.

Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well.

Then the dialogue is also crap.

Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them...

Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?

Lame.

The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.

And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?

Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid.

There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.

After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera.

The end...

Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.