An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.

Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner.

Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.

Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.

The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This show is quick-witted, colorful, dark yet fun, hip and still somehow clean. The cast, including an awesome rotation of special guests (i.e. Molly Shannon, Paul Rubens, The-Stapler-Guy-From-Office-Space) is electric. It's got murder, romance, family, AND zombies without ever coming off as cartoony... Somehow. You really connect with these characters. The whole production is an unlikely magic act that left me, something of a skeptic if I do say so myself, totally engrossed and coming back for more every Wednesday night. I just re-read this and it sounds a little like somebody paid me to write it. It really is that good. I just heard a rumor that it was being canceled so I thought I'd send off a flare of good will. This is one of those shows that goes under the radar because the network suits can't figure out how to make it sexy and sell cars with it. Do yourself a huge favor, if you haven't already, and enjoy this gem while it lasts. OK so one more thing. This show is clever. What that means is that every armchair critic/"writer" in Hollywood is gonna insert a stick up their youknowwhat before they sit down to watch it, defending themselves with an "I could've written that" type speech to absolutely nobody in their lonely renovated Hollywood hotel room. In other words: the internet. This is a general interest/anonymous website. Before you give your Wednesday TV hour to Dirty Sexy Money or Next Hot Model reruns or whatever other out and out tripe these internet "critics" aren't commenting on, give my fave' show a spin. It's fun. Good, unpretentious fun.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Kurt Russell IS Elvis, plain and simple. His dedication to this role resulted in what I think, is the best movie bio ever. If you're an Elvis fan, see it if you can.

The made-for-television film was made two years after Elvis' death.

One piece of advice, there are two versions - one at 180 minutes and one at 117 minutes. The only one to watch is the longer one. The shorter one has more than one hour of footage edited out. It just does not work because the scenes in it are often dependent on the scenes that were cut.

This masterpiece takes you from Elvis childhood through his emergence as entertainment's greatest star. Shelley Winters and Bing Russell (Kurt's real dad) are excellent as Elvis' parents. And Pat Hingle delivers a very competent Col. Tom Parker.

Long live the King!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.

Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.

Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.

Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.