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

Answer: I can't believe the positive reviews of this movie - I thought it was one of the worst, most poorly executed and poorly acted movies I have ever seen. And the plot was completely ludicrous (sp?). She starts making out with him while he's tied to the chair? puh-lease. The worst part was that it wasn't even bad in a good, laughable way. Just plain terrible - I couldn't figure out why they even bothered to show it on HBO. I thought Belushi was ridiculously silly - very unbelievable as an "eccentric" hit man. idk, I could go on - again, I am shocked by the positive reviews. The only thing that kept me watching it is that it's fascinating to see how a movie can go wrong and what makes it bad. And the ending didn't disappoint in its silliness either! "live by the sword, die by the sword..." ridiculous.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I think it took a lot of guts for her to come forward like that. It is unfortunate that when a celebrity suffers that is what helps people most. But, in her case, what she did was remarkable. I have been in the mental health field for five years and I think it is great that mental illness is not a terrible word anymore and I believe she helped. I always thought she was great and always will. I am glad that she wrote this book and that the movie was made. She is a remarkable lady and I hope she continues to act. She has been through a lot and has faced it. I would really love to see her work more with children, especially child actors. Her ordeal should not have happened and I think she would be wonderful as a mentor to young people. The movie was so moving to me that I was very touched. Suffering a TBI which brought the onset of my disorder and having PTSD, it is good to know that someone has the courage enough to display her life as she did. I believe it helped this nation and people in general realize that there are others like them and that there is help. Thank you Ms. Duke, or Anna, which ever you prefer.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film has got to be ranked as one of the most disturbing and arresting films in years. It is one of the few films, perhaps the only one, that actually gave me shivers: not even Pasolini's Salo, to which this film bears comparison, affected me like that. I saw echoes in the film from filmmakers like Pasolini, Fassbinder and others. I had to ask myself, what was it about the film that made me feel like I did? I think the answer would be that I was watching a horror film, but one that defies or even reverses the conventions of said genre. Typically, in a horror film, horrible and frightening things will happen, but on the margins of civilized society: abandoned houses, deserted hotels, castles, churchyards, morgues etc. This handling of the subject in horror is, I think, a sort of defence mechanism, a principle of darkness and opacity functioning as a sort of projective space for the desires and fears of the viewer. So, from this perspective, Hundstage is not a horror film; it takes place in a perfectly normal society, and so doesn't dabble in the histrionics of the horror film. But what you see is the displacement of certain key thematics from the horror genre, especially concerning the body and its violation, the stages of fright and torture it can be put through. What Seidl does is to use the settings of an everyday, middle class society as a stage on which is relayed a repetitious play of sexual aggression, loneliness, lack and violation of intimacy and integrity: precisely the themes you would find in horror, but subjected to a principle of light and transparency from which there is no escape. It is precisely within this displacement that the power of Seidl's film resides. Hundstage deals with these matters as a function of the everyday, displays them in quotidian repetition, rather than as sites of extremity and catharsis - a move you would encounter in said horror genre. One important point of reference here is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Fassbinder also had a way of blending the political with the personal in his films, a tactics of the melodrama that allowed him to deal in a serious and even moral way with political issues like racism, domination, desire, questions concerning ownership, sexual property and control, fascism and capitalism etc. Seidl's tactic of making the mechanisms of everyday society the subject of his film puts him in close proximity with Fassbinder; like this German ally, he has a sort of political vision of society that he feels it is his responsibility to put forward in his films. During a seminar at the Gothenburg Film Festival this year, at which Seidl was a guest, he was asked why he would have so many instances of violated, subjugated women in Hundstage, but no instances of a woman fighting back, liberating herself. Seidl replied that some may view it as immoral to show violence against women, but that he himself felt it would be immoral not to show it. An artistic statement as good as any, I think. Thank you.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Don't be swayed by the naysayers. This is a wonderfully spooky film. This was a thesis project for the writer/director , JT Petty. He did a great job of having me on the edge of my seat. I never really knew what to expect, and for a jaded horror-movie goer, this is Nirvana! The film concerns an elderly man who lives in a isolated log cabin in the woods. One day, while searching for his cat in the woods, he witnesses the murder of a child, or does he? He agonizes about this the rest of the film. What is most unusual about this film is that here is no dialogue until the last few scenes. I found this to be intriguing. The writer manages to get hold of your senses and gives them a relentless tug. Give this film a go, you won't be disappointed.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
As a young teenager at the time, Airwolf was compulsory viewing for a generation who wanted their "Cowboys and Indians" to have amazing gadgets and whizz-bang explosions.

In many ways, the show was essentially Knight Rider in the skies: similar comic-book technology, a central character who was essentially a loner, and echoing the concept of one man making a difference.

But in other, important ways, it was thematically very different from Knight Rider, Street Hawk, The A-Team and other action shows of the time. For one thing, the premise of the series is built not on a desire to help those in need, but by Stringfellow Hawke's possession of Airwolf for essentially selfish reasons (as leverage to try to find his MIA brother, St John). And then there is the dark edge provided by basing the series firmly in an 80s Cold War context, complete with Soviet espionage and Central American dictators, not to mention the enemy within. Sure, The A-Team constantly referred back to Vietnam and the team's status as fugitives, but it was generally done with a light touch and was rarely central to the plot itself. With Airwolf, the intrigue was key to the tone and direction of the show - although this was (ill-advisedly) diluted as the series went on.

With hindsight, the Cold War setting clearly dates the series, many of the stories are creaky and contrived, and much of what Airwolf does is clearly implausible even with today's technology. But that's really not the point. Airwolf was rip-roaring fun, it tried to tell interesting stories without relying solely on the big action sequences, and it didn't sugar-coat everything by miraculously ensuring nobody died. Sometimes it failed, but often it succeeded admirably - and on a TV budget to boot.

For UK readers, DMAX (Sky channel 155) have just started (Jan 2008) daily re-runs of Airwolf. Set your Sky+ box for this blast from the past - we may even get the re-tooled, re-cast (and sadly vastly inferior) fourth season, which to my knowledge has never previously been shown in the UK.