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

Answer: For a long time i haven't seen so beautiful animated feature. Having healthy respect for Pixar, i must say that Ratatouille or any other movie made by 'em can not be compared to this. Animators have created an incredibly beautiful world here. The graphics is amazing, the background surroundings are mind-blowing, almost every object in every frame is drawn perfectly. Sometimes i felt tingles down my spine - so much i loved what i've seen.

The plot is absolutely romantic. As romantic as the animated film plot can possibly be. The characters are lovable, especially Hector, the blue rabbit, he owns, pawns, rocks and rules! The other char-s are very nice also. The humor is top-notch.

Generally it seemed that creators didn't invest much effort into this. I mean it looked like it didn't take em too much in difference from people of Pixar&Dreamworks who try hard every time to think on something new. And i'm very glad that a product of European animation studio turned out to be SO great. They've made a magnificent, touching movie, a candy for eye and heart.

The only minus is stupid beginning and that's why it's 9of10 not 10/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is by far the worst horror/thriller I've seen in my 29 years. If someone offers this to you for free tell them NO. This movie makes you a dumber person for knowing you watched it. The plot isn't even the worst part of this movie.....its the acting, camera work, lighting, and sound. there is absolutely nothing to like about this movie. whoever paid to have this film made is broke now. I hope the director never gets the greenlight for another movie. In its defense this movie was made quickly to try to capitalize on the actual BTK killer's capture but I've seen movie of the weeks that looked like Oscar winners compared to this.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Watching a videotaped replay of about 8 various 1994-1997 Spider-man cartoons made me realize why I couldn't stomach it when it first came out.

I'm from the old school, where the 1967 Spider-man cartoon was the best and still remains the best. (I won't get into the psychedelic version which is terrible - give me traditional villains please.)

The acting in the new stuff is lousy, read off a sheet with either no feeling or overacting. Paul Soles, where are you now? This guy was the best at voice acting for Spider-man. No one comes close. Watching Secret Wars, a great idea for a cartoon mini-series, made me wince. Dr. Doom sounds like a comedy version of Bela Lugosi. In a scene with Red Skull and Doc Ock, Red Skull has no German accent while Ock is heavy Russian! The old Marvel comic hero series from 1966 had much better voice acting. Iron Man sounded like he was wearing an iron mask, Captain America sounded authoritative not like some teenage kid. Paul Frees as the Thing in the 60s was the best Thing ever. The old voice actors were pioneers and there will never be anyone like them. Ever hear Mel Blanc's son? No way can he replicate his dad.

The animation is clunky. Okay, so they have all the fancy character shadings and nicely painted backrounds. Sometimes you can say more with less movement if more movement looks bad. Sometimes when you let the computer take over the movements they become robotic. I really don't think any of these animators know what in betweeners are.

The stories are badly written, and some of the lines they give the heroes are horrible. Why, for example, when heroes are teamed together for the first time they start fighting with each other? In Secret Wars, it was a lame excuse that got them in disagreement. I can see if the hero was dark, unknown and mysterious - like the Punisher, but why the Thing and Iron Man can't hold their tempers with each other is ridiculous, then the Torch joins in. This is just another of the later comic trends to get heroes to square off at each other for a few seconds because 'everyone' wants to see that stuff. Give them a better reason to fight and maybe it can be pulled off, but "Hey what are you doing here" and "You don't tell me what to do" are LAME reasons. Another badly written scene is in The Wedding where Harry Osborne unmasks himself to spoil Peter's wedding. That whole scenario was awful.

Last, but certainly not least, is what another critic calls Juvenile Violence - meaning no punches at all. In Secret Wars, the Lizard carefully ducked the Thing's charge. But the Thing punches the bad guys across an entire block in the comics. He must simply revert to lifting heavy things and subduing a bad guy by grabbing hold of him in the cartoons. Sure, these cartoons were not made strictly for us adults but for kids under 12. That's why they can't have punching, because mommy and daddy don't believe in that type of violence. But you can blow things up, these cartoons will include that. As a kid before political correctness came in fashion I saw cartoons punching each other. What's wrong with a punch to the chops? Is there really less violence in the world today because those slick and crafty new cartoons took out the punch? I find this the most insulting of all when I watch the new stuff. They've written out "the punch' because we could all hurt ourselves.

Kids, enjoy these cartoons all you want, I've seen enough.

3/10 rating
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of "Lampoon's" truly funny films like "National Lampoon's Golddiggers" - MERK
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.

The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.

Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).

The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.

While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.

I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.

While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag.