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

Answer: Complete waste of time.... This movie is not comedy, it's not drama, it's not romance...not even teenage comedy at least!!! Story... it should be some turn-over one end... but it's so disappointing! When movie has a turn-over on end I expect that turn-over to make movie even better (exp. "Fight Club") but this turn-over makes movie even worse.... When I watch teenage comedy, and I don't do that very often, I expect lousy jokes and bunch of nudeness... Jokes are too lousy and there is no nudity... You got only one....very good looking I must admit... girl, and that's that! And she's fully dressed whole movie! Acting is bad... like soap series... Don't waste your time! There are porns with better story and acting!

(sorry on my bad English)

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

Answer: This timeless proverb reverberates in this movie and in my heart. So many years have I waited to see this eternal story! I was not ready, perhaps. It is possible that my sensibilities would not have appreciated its power. So I now gratefully welcome it into my soul with gladness.

My respect and admiration for PAUL MUNI has been long. His is now a legendary luminescence. But now I have finally discovered the priceless gifts of LUISE RAINER's splendid talents. Oh, how many faces can speak as did hers? Some have said that it was wrought from her silent years, and this well might have been but her speech, is eloquent enough when it is given a chance. She amply deserved her Oscar.

This movie is in an epic in the most classical proportions. All parts equal, necessary and perfect. Naysayers may walk away if they wish, but they would be shunning a storytelling which stays with one a lifetime.

THE GOOD EARTH enriches one in ways that one does not expect. But all will not come from it with the joy that I did. But I can only hope that this film will be remembered for many years.

Do not prod me with mere technicalities regarding the race of the principal players. These are expectations of modern times when we are obsessed with utter perfection. But I dare a million score of newer films to tell PEARL BUCK's story with such poignancy, power, conviction and grace.

If any modern artist would dare to re-film this masterpiece, I warn them that they will never come close to the aromatic fragrance which still emanates from the core of this telling. Time will not diminish this effort nor will progress improve upon its greatness.

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

Answer: This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.

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

Answer:
It's a while ago, that I have seen Sleuth (1972) with two great actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. Michael Caine is back, but he is now the husband and Jude Law the lover of his wife. The story is still the same and it's a fantastic play.

During the movie I always had the feeling to watch a play. That's one of the reasons I dislike this remake of a classic. When I watch a movie adapted a play I still must feel to see a movie and not just a play. Director Kenneth Brannigan did some marvelous movies in the past, but this time he missed. Another reason was the look of the movie. The design was modern, stylish clean, uncomfortable and cold. I never got the feeling that somebody ever lived in that house. The photography wasn't bad, but the lightening was awful. Sometimes there was blue light, dark, green light, to round it up not friendly for eyes.

The acting was really good. Michael Caine's and Jude Law's perform at their best. I really would like to see these 2 guys playing together on stage. But I have to confess I never was a fan of Jude Law. The weakest part was the mid part. I remember that in the original that this part was still very mysterious and just marvelous directed. I tried to watch it twice and always in the mid part I felt asleep. The end part is better and more interesting. Sleuth (2007) isn't awful, but it seems to be more a movie for critics than for the audience. Sleuth (1972) is still a masterpiece and much more entertaining than Sleuth (2007).