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

Answer: If you read my review of SyFy's "Dinoshark", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey "Dinoshark", I sat down to watch "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people!

Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.

It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.

Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.)
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: So let me start off by saying that I saw this movie as part of a bargain. I was really bored one fine 1997 day and so I biked over to the movie rental store. I asked the clerk what the worst movie he had in stock was. Without hesitation he walked me over to "Lucky Stiff." He told me that he'd waive the $1 rental fee (he said it would be wrong to charge more) if I promised to watch the whole movie. So watch it I did, for free...

This movie is terrible. God-Awful even. I don't need to go into plot details, read the other reviews. The jokes make no sense. The acting was terrible. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but the stupidity of the main character was exhausting. You might try to watch it as something to laugh at, but it's so bad that it isn't even funny in that way. Avoid!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Although this isn't a "great film," there's something compelling and memorable about it. Like another commenter on the film, I saw this in childhood. It's been thirty three years since 1952, but I have never forgotten the story or its ridiculously cumbersome title. See it if you have the opportunity. You'll feel like a voyeur of small town life as it evolves through the decades. More than any other film, this one brings a human face to the historical drama of early twentieth century "progress." It's engaging enough for a young viewer and memorable enough for an older one. Furthermore, it's easy to like the characters and watch their passage through time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10