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

Answer: Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of "not humans". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.

I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.

The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.

Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.

The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.

Overall, I would give it a thumbs up!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. "LOU" is such a film. I got "LOU" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again.

"LOU" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.

As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a "must see" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.