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

A: This film, by Oscar Petersson, is unique. Its uniqueness doesn't lie in the story, since many a half brained Hollywood production has served us comparably miserable plots, but rather in the thorough way that complete and utter lousiness in one aspect is joined with equal lousiness in all other aspects.

The dialog is worse than embarrassing. Rotten acting and abysmal direction are thrown into the mix. Bosnians speaking English with heavy Swedish accents add an unintentional element of humor. Uninspired lightning and camera-work are icing on the turkey film cake. As a sort of surprise for the audience, there are a few completely unmotivated slow motion sequences where you'd least expect any. To add insult to injury, the whole thing is cut by someone devoid of any sense of timing.

The "bad guy henchman turns good after hearing good guy's speech" scene in the church, is the point at which is time to dethrone Ed Wood from the position as the worst director of all times; Move over Ed Wood - here comes Oscar Petersson!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It's a shame this movie is so hard to get your hands on in the US. I found it through a rare video dealer, and it was certainly worth it. This is, without a doubt, the best film made during the pre-code era, and the finest film of the 1930s. Masterful director Frank Borzage made wonderful films about the Depression, and with MAN'S CASTLE he created a fairy tale amidst the hardships of the era.

Loretta Young and Spencer Tracy have a wonderful chemistry between them, and they help make this movie a wonderful romance. Young's Trina is sweet and hopeful, while Tracy's Bill is gruff and closed-off. The dynamic between the character creates one of the most difficult, but in the end rewarding relationships on film.

MAN'S CASTLE is the most soft-focus pre-code film I've seen. Borzage uses the hazy and dreamy technique to turn the squatter's village where Bill and Trina live into a palace. The hardships of the Depression are never ignored, in fact they're integral to the film. But as Borzage crafts the film as a soft focus fairy tale, the love between the characters makes the situation seem less harsh. It makes the film warm and affectionate.

MAN'S CASTLE is the crowning achievement of the pre-code era. If only more people could see it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: When you see this movie you begin to realise what a drastically under-utilised asset the late Dudley Moore was. There should be a dozen movies like this in our archive.

He was already top-notch talent before he went to Hollywood, both as a comedian and a musician. But mostly he is remembered for his pairing with Peter Cook, on television and in one or two indifferent British movies. Perhaps the best of these was 'Bedazzled'.

He always tended to be eclipsed by Cook, who's jealousy and meanness rifted their partnership and enabled Moore to realise his true potential in America. 'Arthur' is the result.

This is a truly splendid movie. Moore's clownish comedy as a drunkard is undeniable. The script is perfectly suited to his manner with lot's of hilarious, almost surreal conversational digressions. There is something so British about him that I'm actually surprised he found such an appeal to American tastes. Tommy Cooper, an anarchic comedian after the same fashion tended to draw a blank. It is Moore's almost childish vulnerability that is so endearing.

Liza Minelli and John Guilgud tend to play straight roles against him, but still have some excellent one-liners. John Guilgud in particular delivers his with a sarcastic and acerbic authority that is a treasure to watch. He invariably steals any scene in which he features and thoroughly deserved his Oscar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he has never played any other comic role.

There is a follow-up movie called 'Arthur 2 - On The Rocks'. It never attains the same sublime levels of fun that this one reaches, but it is still rather good even so. Guilgud only gets a cameo appearance at the beginning and as a ghost. It is darker. And there is some interesting soul-searching. It will disappoint if you watch 'Arthur' first.

Hollywood seemed to loose interest in cuddly Dudley after these two outings. He eventually returned to Britain, dejected and apparently dying.

But 'Arthur' is a sample of what might have been. We can only imagine the other great movies he should have made.

Your're sadly missed, Dudley.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Soylent Green I found to be an excellent movie.

If you like Logan's Run you'll like this.

Yes the movie is old and there are no special effects and some of the acting can somewhat be best described as "cheesy" but the story is excellent.

The story of how the world can be and its impact on society is very poignant.

At the end the mystery wasn't a mystery but the story unfolded in an easy at the right pace.

It's nearest modern day equivalent would be "Dark Angel" in terms of how the US is shown to be third-world country.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.

When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.

However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part cliched and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.

All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox