Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.

I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.

Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy "Hey Arnold!", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch "Hey Arnold!" as I used to watch it on the past.

Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.

Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: An unassuming, subtle and lean film, "The Man in the White Suit" is yet another breath of fresh air in filmic format from Ealing studios. While I suspect some modern viewers may initially find it obscure, I doubt many would fail to be charmed by the expert way the plot, the themes and characters are languidly relayed during the film's course.

The genuinely great Alec Guinness gives another fine characterization in a film perhaps not as obviously virtuoso as Ealing's inspired "Kind Hearts and Coronets" from 1949. This time, he merely plays one character rather than eight, but as the unworldly inventor and scientist Sidney Stratton, he always finds the correct tone and expression. Along with Guinness' subtle, expressive performance, the rest of the cast are effective. Of the main players, Cecil Parker and Ernest Thesiger do stand out. Thesiger is compellingly absurd as the crippled but influential business grandee, while Parker is dependable as the ineffectual yet pivotal mill owner and father. Father, that is, of Joan Greenwood, the deftly delectable comic actress, who is at her insurmountable peak in this film. Resplendent and seductive of aspect and diction, she is quite sublime in this film, a fine contrast with the similarly unusual, but more maladroit Guinness. The scene where she seemingly tries to tempt him is played so adeptly by the pair that it is both deeply poignant and amusing...

The themes are handled very effectively, with no easy morals drawn. The complexities of the relationships between science, business and the workforce are insightfully and enjoyably examined. Expertly helmed by Alexander Mackendrick, this film is technically adept in all areas; evocative photography, fitting sound effects and music and a wistful script, all quietly impress. A thoroughly satisfying film, with Guinness and Greenwood magnificent.

Rating:- **** 1/2/*****
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!