Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Two old men sitting on a park bench . I don't really have a problem with this scene - Only problem is that it's not a scene it's the entire movie

Yup movies don't get anymore low concept than this . They also don't get anymore boring than this either , but there's worse to come because these two old men are chalk and cheese . One is Nat Moyer who is Yiddish communist while the other is Midge Carter a former golden gloves champion who's also black . Let me see now , a Jew and a black man sitting on a park bench getting along fine . Well I guess it's possible though unlikely , but if this film has such an inoffensive scenario why play up to the Jewish stereotype ? Why make them loud tribilistic rabble rousers who take hebrew oaths ? Slightly ironic that the Jews seen at the start of the movie are exactly the type of Jews seen in Nazi propaganda films in the 1930s

Stereotypes aside moi dearz the problem with I'M NOT RAPPAPORT is that it's written for an entirely different meduim than cinema , it's based on a stage play and it shows . Walter Matthau sleepwalks through his role as Nat while this commentator almost slept through the whole movie
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Well, I just discovered that there is a show more disgusting and shocking than "Little Britain" and I like it! "The League of Gentlemen" is a sick British comedy that is about the most awful, insane and disgusting small town in all the UK. This place makes Dibley and Craggy Island (from "The Vicar of Dibley" and "Father Ted") seem pretty normal!! The format of the show is a lot like LITTLE Britain except that all of it centers around the townspeople of this one hellish town. Both shows feature the same skits again and again every episode and some obviously inspired "Little Britain" (particularly the job seeking class skit). But the show differs because although it is crude like "Little Britain" (hence not a show for kids), the show has a sick and sadistic quality that sets it apart from all these shows. In particular, animal cruelty and serial killing are recurring themes throughout the show.

Now if you haven't guessed, this is NOT a show for kids, the easily offended or normal people and that's probably why I liked it. However, you really do need very thick skin and a love of the awful to enjoy this to the max. Funny and incredibly irreverent beyond belief--you have to see it to believe it.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.

A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.

Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.

Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.

Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE!

If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!