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

Answer: Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Good action show, but nothing new. This one took place high in the mountains, which showed some nice scenery and such. One man takes on a group of mercenaries, the lead flies, and he kicks butt. It could have been called "Rambo Goes to the Rockies", it was that pat. It did have one very effective scene right at the first of the film which had me cringing in horror. Not a bad picture, but just same ol', same ol'.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was deceived into thinking it might be good because a couple of my favorite actors are in it. Now I want to punch Jason Schwartzman in the face for taking this role. I was physically ill after watching this film. I really don't understand Hollywood sometimes. There are so many people trying to break in that I'm sure you can skim off the top and get the very best. That way the worst movie you make is equivalent to Ferris Beullar instead of this sludge. The gags like the hair doll and blatantly ripping off jeans commercials added to the humorlessness of the film. Glad I avoided this film and watched it on TV. This proves that you should avoid January releases at all cost.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliche of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.

However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.

PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot is twisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literature enthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculous cannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In the poem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can't believe that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel is portrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the only positive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane if she saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epic poem "Beowulf," avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn't recommend it.