Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Good exciting movie, although it looks to me that it's not been recorded on location in Thailand, it still looks realistic. Nice story about some girls having 'fun' in one of the most beautiful countries on the world. In real the Thai people are very kind.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Distortion is a disturbing, haunting film, about life imitating art and art reflecting life. Haim Bouzaglo, the director of the film, plays the role of Haim Bouzaglo, artistically blocked and sexually impotent playwright, who finds inspiration in his suspicions about the subject of his girl friend's documentary. As an Arab suicide bomber, disguised in skullcap and American t-shirt, wanders through the landscape in search of his target and his nerves, Haim transcribes his girl friend's life as she films her documentary and incorporates himself and his actors' lives during rehearsals. But the bomber has already struck and Haim has left the restaurant just minutes earlier. Despite the manipulation of time and space, the story is crystal clear, comprehensive and absorbing, a brilliant commentary on the "distortion" of everyday Israeli life, where the political is intertwined with the personal, where everyone lives "on the edge," and people never know whether they are playing leading roles in their own lives or are merely dispensable bit players in someone else's dramatic narrative.

Bouzaglo plays with this notion of everyone being an actor in someone else's production brilliantly. We are always voyeurs, seeing what the fictional director sees illicitly but also what the "real" director chooses to reveal. To remind us that these glimpses are violations of privacy, Bouzaglo takes us into the bathroom and the bedroom (sometimes the bedroom is the street and rooftop), and repeatedly frames his views within TV, video, or security screens. Actors play the role of actors who represent the "real" characters played by actors. Of course, each of the actors is the star of his or her own production, only dimly aware of their diminished roles in their fellow actor's personal films. The detective hired by the playwright becomes a character in the play. The actor hired to play the role of the detective seeks out the detective for "tips" on how to play the role, is caught by the detective on surveillance tapes, and they attend a cast party as their real selves.

Despite this multiplicity of views, there is no mistaking the clear lines of this narrative: the playwright searches for subject matter, the bomber seeks a target, and the detective stalks the filmmaker. Nor is there any difficulty locating Bouzaglo's ultimate targetenervated and impotent Israel, fully conscious of the threatening peril but incapable of meaningful action. Israel is Bouzaglo, the impotent fictional playwright cannibalizing his own life for his play. Israel is also the bankrupt soldier-entrepreneur who is the subject of the filmmaker's documentary, the cheating actors and actresses, and the cuckolded husband. They are all Israel because they are all helpless, caught in inaction or aimless action, as the bomber scans the landscape for his best target. All the characters can do as another bombing is reported is have sex and keep "score" of victims.

There is personal triumph, vindication, perhaps revenge at the end of this play within a story within a film, but viewers will be left aching for the state of Israel even as they are filled with admiration for Bouzaglo's memorable rendition of a nation's plight within the telling of an individual's story.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."

The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!

Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.

Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!