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

Answer: Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, "I'll just call you Jackass then"???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.

The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.

I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.

This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.

Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.

Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.

An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film, originally released at Christmas, 1940, was long thought lost. A very poor copy has resurfaced and made into a CD, now for sale. Don't buy it! The film is unspeakably terrible. The casting is poor, the script is awful, and the directing is dreadful.

Picture Roland Young singing and dancing. And that was the highlight.

Perhaps this movie was lost deliberately.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Two years later... Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are becoming near rock stars in the present future but still needing more work in their instruments. In the future, Bill & Ted are in the public popular history but then a evil man (Joss Ackland) is set to kill Bill & Ted by sending cyborg look-likes to destroy them. Cyborgs are sent to the past present and they actually murder the real Bill & Ted. Now, Both guys are spirits and they have to travel through Heaven and Hell to save themselves and their future.

Directed by Peter Hewitt (Tom and Huck, The Borrowers) made a clever sequel with terrific visual effects. Much more funny and entertaining than the original. William Sadler (The Shawshank Redemption) steals the show as The Grim Reaper.

DVD has an good anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the theatrical trailer and an amusing behind the scenes featurette. This sequel was a Box Office hit like the original but it is also (Believe it or not), one of the best sequels ever made (depending on your point of view). George Carlin reprises his role from the original briefly. Pam Grier also appears in a bit role. It's a enjoyable fantasy comedy. (****/*****).
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Best-selling horror novelist Cheryl (a solid and sympathetic performance by the lovely Virginia Bryant), her husband Tom (the likable Paolo Serra), and their son Bobby (nicely played by Patrizio Vinci) go to a remote castle located in the countryside for summer vacation. Local legend claims that the area is cursed. Cheryl discovers a creepy, hairy, nasty ogre (hulking David Flosi in a strikingly hideous costume) living in the basement. Cheryl has to surmount her deep-seated childhood fear of the beast so she can defeat the foul find. Director/co-writer Lamberto Bava does an expert job of creating and sustaining an eerie and unnerving nightmarish mood. Moreover, Bava eschews the standard blood'n'guts fright flick routine in favor of crafting a compelling and provocative dark adult fairytale-like fable on how the best way to overcome that which frightens us is to face said source head on. Sturdy supporting turns by Sabrina Ferilli as friendly school teacher Anna, Stefania Montorsi as hottie babysitter Maria, and Alex Serra as batty painter Dario. Gianfranco Transunto's glossy cinematography boasts a few fluid tracking shots and plenty of great atmospheric lighting. Fabrizio Sforza's gnarly make-up f/x, Simon Boswell's splendidly spirited spooky'n'shuddery score, and the dank, dark, cobweb-covered cellar set all hit the skin-crawling spot. Well worth watching.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Live! Yes, but not kicking.

True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.

The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.

As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.

The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.

The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.

And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.

Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.

Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.

As if.

*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.

It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.

*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.