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

Answer: The film began with Wheeler sneaking into the apartment of his girlfriend. Her aunt (Edna May Oliver--a person too talented for this film) didn't like Wheeler--a sentiment I can easily relate to. The aunt decided to take this bland young lady abroad to get her away from Wheeler. They left and Wheeler invested in a revolution in a small mythical kingdom because they promised to make him their king. At about the same time, Woolsey was in the same small mythical kingdom and he was made king. So when Wheeler arrived, it was up to the boys to fight it out, but they refused because they are already friends--which greatly disappointed the people, as killing and replacing kings is a national pastime.

I am a huge fan of comedy from the Golden Age of Hollywood--the silent era through the 1940s. I have seen and reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these films and yet despite my love and appreciation for these films I have never been able to understand the appeal of Wheeler and Woolsey--the only comedy team that might be as bad as the Ritz Brothers! Despite being very successful in their short careers in Hollywood (cut short due to the early death of Robert Woolsey), I can't help but notice that practically every other successful team did the same basic ideas but much better. For example, there were many elements of this film reminiscent of the Marx Brother's film, DUCK SOUP, yet CRACKED NUTS never made me laugh and DUCK SOUP was a silly and highly enjoyable romp. At times, Woolsey talked a bit like Groucho, but his jokes never have punchlines that even remotely are funny! In fact, he just seemed to prattle pointlessly. His only funny quality was that he looked goofy--surely not enough reason to put him on film. Additionally, Wheeler had the comedic appeal of a piece of cheese--a piece of cheese that sang very poorly! A missed opportunity was the old Vaudeville routine later popularized by Abbott and Costello as "who's on first" which was done in this film but it lacked any spark of wit or timing. In fact, soon after they started their spiel, they just ended the routine--so prematurely that you are left frustrated. I knew that "who's on first" had been around for many years and used by many teams, but I really wanted to see Wheeler and Woolsey give it a fair shot and give it their own twist.

Once again, I have found yet another sub-par film by this duo. While I must admit that I liked a few of their films mildly (such as SILLY BILLIES and THE RAINMAKERS--which I actually gave 6's to on IMDb), this one was a major endurance test to complete--something that I find happens all too often when I view the films of Wheeler and Woolsey. Where was all the humor?!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with cliches and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing this movie.