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

A: I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.

I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that "thou shalt not steal" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.

I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.

That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.

If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.

Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.

Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.

For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I totally disagree with the other reviews.All basically negative.I took a chance on this movie and was glad that I did.Glad indeed.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Nothing period.The script is original.The actors are all likable and convincing.Dee Smart reminded me of Marcia Brady from the Brady Bunch.But this gal truly can act.The setting in the Australian Outback is perfect.Incredible scenery.Great soundtrack i.e Paul Kelly.God bless Paul Kelly.The Cranberries are also here.I have seen this movie twice in less than 24 hrs.I will probably watch it again.It is that interesting.It makes one think.It is(was)probably better than nine-tenths of the so-called Hollywood blockbusters that were also out during this time.Back Of Beyond is a likable.Well photographed film.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Check it out!My first review!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.

This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the "screen consummation" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.

The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.

April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This film was abysmal. and not in the good way as some have claimed. First off the main character is a very unattractive gingerman. Second - WTF is going on with this van love. The plot, basically, is: boy wants sex so buys a van (which, in fairness is quite cool). Unbelievably given that he looks like a newt he scores with lots of chicks! And he fails with some. Then he scores with a really hot chick and realises he loves this dowdy bird who played hard to get. Then he drag races with the hot chicks boyfriend. And he tips his van. At which point danny devito saves the day. Although he didn't need to because in tipping the van the ginger kid crossed the line first. I gave this 2 *'s as i'm willing to assume that there's some sort of 70's Vanning subculture i'm not getting and also because there's some 70's boobage too.