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

Answer: OK first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s I was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. Secondly the plot was all over the place, right off the bat the story is confusing. Had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would've been better. Also I appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. It was bizarre and badly filmed. The scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. It was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. I love Chinese epic films but if you're looking for a Chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the Promise (visually stunning, the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. Beware you will be disappointed.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.

Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!

Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Given the low budget and production limitations, this movie is very good. It is plausible, realistic, and shows how the Csikos (Hungarian horsemen who lived on the plains (puszta) risked their lives to save a downed American pilot from the ruthless and savage Nazis. We are drawn into strong feelings for the young, impressionable, yet highly courageous boy--who admires the American pilot. If you're looking for special effects, superman heroes, and magical endings--this movie is not for you. If you want to feel what it must have been like to dodge the persistent, amoral Nazis and their lack of compassion, then you will be enthralled by this movie. I truly enjoyed it and for those who love horses, dogs, and humble, helpful people who value freedom and those who aspire to that end, this movie will be one you'll remember for a long time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I refused to watch this when it originally aired, treasuring the memory of the late, lamented 1960s series with Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope, but I can never resist a challenge. I should have known better. Not quite a remake, and more of a parody than a homage, this show didn't quite know how to play it, and plumped with infantile comedy and cartoon plots and characters. The three main characters were little more than caricatures of the actors, and only Emilia Fox could act (Bob Mortimer is painful in a straight role). The supporting cast were merely comedian-acquaintances of Vic and Bob's wanting to be part of the in-joke, and far too aware of the situation to be convincing. And the CGI, though the effects couldn't help be an improvement on those available 30 years earlier, merely dazzled the viewer with lights and camera work, and did little to mask the poor quality of the scripts and dialogue. All style and no substance. (And whereas the 1960s show is mocked for being very much of its time, this 'update' is now also very dated, with 'Matrix'-style fashions, obligatory 'girl power' scenes, and less than subtle tension between the two living leads.)
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.

Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.

The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.

Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.

Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.

Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.