Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: What's inexplicable? Firstly, the hatred towards this movie. It may not be the greatest movie of all time, but gimme a break, it got 11 oscars for a reason, it made EIGHTEEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS for a reason. It's a damn good movie. Which brings to the other inexplicable aspect of it. I have no idea whatsoever why this movie left such an impression on me when I saw it in theaters. I've rewatched it on TV and video, and it had none of the impact it had when I saw it on the big screen (twice, or maybe three times, actually). But that might be it, the appeal of it. It's a Movie, yes, capital M there, it's an Epic, it's a spectacle in the order of Gone With the Wind or Ben Hur. Now, Ben Hur and Gone With the Wind seem kinda hokey to me, with the hammy acting and excessive melodrama. Not that Titanic has none of that. Well, the acting was actually very good. The melodrama was quite heavy-handed at times.

But the reason Titanic works is that it's such an emotional ride. I usually enjoy movies that stimulate the mind, or give me a visual thrill. This movie isn't exactly dumb, but it's not cerebral at all. The visual thrills are simply means to an end, to fuel the emotions of the audience. I didn't cry when Bambi's mom died, I don't react to tearjerkers. But this is a tearjerker to the power of ten million, an emotional rollercoaster that, if it were a regular one, would make Buzz Aldrin scream like a little girl. And I'm sure that if you see it on video and have decided that you hate it, and have a ready supply of cynicism, then you can thoroughly dislike this movie. But if you let that disbelief suspend just a bit, if you give this epic melodrama the benefit of the doubt, you'll enjoy it completely. And look at the top ten grossing films of all time. Is a single one of them bad? Is a single one of them worth a score of 1 out of 10? No, not even The Phantom Menace. And this movie made 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. It can't be bad. Not possible. 10/10.

p.s. how can anyone even consider comparing this to spiderman? spiderman was a fun movie, but it was a total 9/11 kneejerk that caused it to gross as much as it did. it simply wasn't anything all that special. no one will remember it in 50 years. but i'm pretty sure Titanic will be remembered.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The BFG is one of Roald Dahl's most cherished books, but in this animated adaptation the magic just isn't there. This version remains pretty faithful to Dahl's original story so one can't lay the blame on John Hambley's script. If anything the fault lies with the colourless animation, the lethargic pace and the generally lacklustre voice-overs. One would be right to expect this story to make for a happy, vibrant, fun-filled movie..... instead, the film is a hopelessly dull affair that becomes quite tedious to watch. Children who are not familiar with the story should definitely read the book first! All the film will achieve is to put them off read what is actually a children's' classic.

Young orphan Sophie (voice of Amanda Root) lives in a none-too-friendly orphanage under the cruel supervision of Mrs Clonkers. One evening she is peering through the window when she spots a massive figure walking stealthily down the village street. The figure realises it has been seen, so it reaches in through the window and scoops Sophie from her bed, placing her into its enormous pocket before fleeing into the night. Sophie soon discovers that she has been kidnapped by a giant from Giant Country, and fears that he will eat her. But to her relief he turns out to be a kind and sensitive member of his species who introduces himself as the BFG (voice of David Jason). The BFG refuses to eat people, instead restricting himself to foul-tasting vegetables known as snozzcumbers. However, Giant Country is populated by numerous other giants who DO feast - every night, as it happens - on poor unsuspecting humans. Sophie and the BFG become great friends, and soon they come up with a plan to thwart the other giants. Together they go to the Queen of England (voice of Angela Thorne) with their remarkable story and beg her to send the army and the air force to fight the man-eating giants. The Queen agrees and so begins a dangerous operation to capture the bad giants before they can harm anyone else.

Jason voices the BFG quite well (one of the few pluses in the film) but his good work is almost ruined by somewhat poor sound quality. The rest of the voice work is decidedly uninspired, with very little to bring the characters to life. Similarly, the BFG is the only character that is imaginatively animated - Sophie lacks appeal, and the giants are boringly designed (and look almost indistinguishable from each other). Even the places are uninventive; Giant Country especially comes up short, being nothing more than a barren wasteland with occasional rocks and canyons. At 88 minutes the film is not exactly lengthy, yet it drags quite badly in parts due to the soporific handling of several sequences. Little of Dahl's mischievous humour is conveyed satisfactorily. One chapter in the book deals with the BFG's love of "whizzpopping" (farting) and is laugh-out-loud hilarious. In the film, the same section is totally killed by unfunny handling. I came to the The BFG expecting lots of zest, fun and enjoyment, but what I got was pretty much the opposite! This one is a failed misfire that simply doesn't match the calibre of the book in any department - unfortunately, therefore, it must go down as one to skip.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The script for "Scary Movie 2" just wasn't ready to go. This is a problem with the film that is blatantly evident, to the actors and the audience alike. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans, and many of the actors are funny people; and so the movie isn't completely humorless. To their credit, the film has several funny moments. But as a whole, "Scary Movie 2" is not even close to being as clever and amusing as the original.

The first "Scary Movie" was a laugh a minute film. It turned the smallest subtleties of the slasher film genre into comedic gold. The humor in "Scary Movie 2" is as heavy handed as it is un-original. They even miss obvious opportunities for parody. Two of the movies stars are former cast members of "Beverly Hills 90210," and this was a show that was begging to be parodied! In the final analysis, "Scary Movie 2" is like a fine bottle of wine that was opened far too soon. The script needed a lot more time to age. 2 stars out of 5.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Kalifornia came out in 1993, just as 3 of the 4 lead characters were up and coming to the levels of fame they now possess in 2006. This is a nice psycho-thriller that should appeal to all David Duchovny fans because of his dry and intelligent narratives that find their ways into his work, like with most of his episodes of the X-Files, Playing God, and Red Shoe Diaries.

People who were put off by the heavy southern accent from Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis' characters obviously have never spent much time in the south. For every "Brian and Carrie" in the south, there is an "Adele and Early" and in 2006, that's the real horror of this flick.

Aside from that, I think the film was written with a cult film intention - like with Carrie's photography, it's not suitable for mass consumption. But if you have a copy of this in your personal library, I think it says something positive about your tastes for freaky movies.