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

Answer: A friend of mine bought this film for 1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.

Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.

Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: In Christian Duguay's movie, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, Hitler's early years in life and politics is shown in a successful way with some minor historical errors and some exaggeration. It is quite natural for a Hollywood movie to contain such things as the main purpose of production is the income that they will get from the movie. Even though such errors may disappoint some members of the audience who believes that everything should be done by the book, I believe that most of them fits well with the rest of the movie, making it more interesting. We should not forget that this movie is not a documentary. Who cares how did his dog died anyway.

Throughout the movie, Hitler is portrayed as a psychologically unstable figure that gets angry very easily and is very passionate about his ideals. But he was not portrayed as a super-villain but more like an ambitious politician. I believe that this is a nice perspective as the movie is not contaminated by tons of negative emotions and this made the movie somewhat objective. Yes he was a little mad, and his methods were rough but he was still a human not a totally insane figure as portrayed in "Inglorious Bastards". I believe it made the movie more realistic even with some inaccuracies in the historical facts.

The flow of history is nicely reflected to spectators. Even though the movie's focus was around Hitler we also had chance to see what is happening in the country as a result of these actions via newspapers, discussions of people and the songs in a Jewish cabaret. Also society's reaction was also reflected to movie but it was very limited. Struggles of journalist Fritz Gerlich and ironic plays that are played in the cabaret was amusing and interesting but that was all. Mostly we only saw his followers rampaging the streets and cheering him.

Another thing that was missing in the movie is information about the origins of his hatred for Jews. In the beginning of the movie, some ideas about this is given but they were quite superficial. All of a sudden he was a politician who is giving speeches about necessity of extermination of Jews.

In conclusion, Hitler: The Rise of Evil cannot be considered as an excellent movie that everyone will like but it is not unsatisfactory at all. If you can stand directors that change history for cash, it is an interesting movie reflecting Hitler's personality in a successful way.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film is hilarious, original, & beautifully directed. I have become a BIG BAD SWIM groupie, tracking it to film festivals whenever & wherever I can. I've seen it about half a dozen times now, & each time, enthusiastic audience response has confirmed my feeling that this is one of the best films to come out in years. At nearly every festival it has screened, it has either sold out, or won the Audience Favorite award. It's clear that people love this film, & even clearer why they do. The cinematography is superb, the characterization & acting brilliant, the ending fantastic, & the direction filled with compassion, wisdom & the art of perfect timing. It's hard to believe this is Ishai Setton's first film. I hope it will be released soon so everyone can see it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: First off, I had my doubts just looking at the DVD box and reading it saying that it was about of bunch of teens gathering at a lake where they will find do or something. Any movie that has a premise like this has failed miserably, even as a slasher movie, except for the first Friday the 13th.

I wanted to get up and stop watching the movie at least 10 times, but I just kept thinking that it had to get a little better. It didn't. Usually, I think every movie has something that you can take from it. This has nothing.

Do yourself a favor, and find something constructive to do for 80 minutes. Like, give yourself papercuts, or eat dirt.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel "Jane Eyre". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-)