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

Answer: I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the "old" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing "Cabin Fever", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly "scary" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an "hommage" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a "good" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times ("let's try to get help!"), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.

I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that "new" isn't necessarily "better". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Because of all the negative reviews of this film I almost didn't watch it. However, I was pleasantly surprised that it was a fairly enjoyable horror movie. The acting wasn't great - apart from the wonderful Alice Krige - but some of the dialogue ("Just consider yourself lunch.") was quite amusing.

On the whole an above average Stephen King effort - 7/10.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.

We were misled, in spades.

On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.

And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.

OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.

If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the "good" and "bad" guys is decidedly less than distinct.

Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an "enemy" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.

I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment.