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

Answer: An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!

The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for 'Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick 'Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.

The most remarkable thing about 'Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from 'The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), 'Contact' and 'Outbreak'; a few hints of 'Alien', CE3K', 'The Andromeda Strain', 'Kubrick's '2001' (i.e. the 'alien black box') and 'Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of 'Sneakers' and 'A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a 'cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent 'X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from 'The Abyss'.

Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I love this movie! 10 out of 10 hands down! It is that damn good! I am not much of a fan of movies but I gotta tell you this one opened my eyes. Astounding color and fast energy. I was fortunate to catch this at a screening during the Zoinks! Film Festival in Boston, and the story really enveloped me from the start. It had a lot of adult themes and character and when it ended I wanted more. I hope they make a sequel. That would be fun. My only problem with it is the performance of Melissa Connor as Anya. UGH! She SUCKS! I've seen a block of wood pull out a better performance. I don't what the director was thinking when he cast her. But if you ignore her you can't help but give this movie a big ten!!!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting.