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

A: Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.

Well, let's start with the good news first:

THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.

The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.

The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I knew this film was supposed to be so bad it was funny, so I went into it with that expectation. I just found it to be so bad it was murderously boring. The whiny theme song is funny for about 10 seconds, until you realize there is nothing clever about it except its intentionally irritating quality. Seeing things get splattered with tomatoes gets old in about 30 seconds. There is just nothing clever or funny about the film except for the premise. It could sustain a 3-4 minute comedy sketch maybe, but this is just not a feature film by any stretch of the imagination.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: *spoliers* do not read any further if you haven't seen this movie

Picking up after the depressing "Phantasm II" ended; The Tall Man kidnaps Mike, while Reggie and new kid Tim spend most of the rest of the movie trying to get him back, and not end up as slaves on the Tall Man's "Red Planet". This one gets really silly: the trio of thieves in the bright pink hearse were only there for comic relief, and the black karate chick (can't remember her name) was so irritating I couldn't wait to see if the Tall Man killed her character. This one sets it up to almost look like it was going to be Tim's character, who comes in late and ultimately is the hero, but ... it doesn't quite work out that way. By the very end of this story Liz is beheaded by the killer midgets, Mike gets a silver sphere implanted into his skull, the spheres get Reggie and the dwarfs get Tim, and there's no one left to stop The Tall Man. The bad guy wins - now how's that for a surprise twist at the end?

This was filmed in 1993 and unreleased until '95, and the ending of this one was at the time final, and although it's disappointing and anticlimactic it was also a fitting and appropriate ending for this weird little series. But the fourth one changes this ending and adds nothing new but more bad jokes, and an even worse and more nonsensical ending ...

*1/2 out of ****
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it.

To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...

Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is not the typical Mel Brooks film. It was much less slapstick than most of his movies and actually had a plot that was followable. Leslie Ann Warren made the movie, she is such a fantastic, under-rated actress. There were some moments that could have been fleshed out a bit more, and some scenes that could probably have been cut to make the room to do so, but all in all, this is worth the price to rent and see it. The acting was good overall, Brooks himself did a good job without his characteristic speaking to directly to the audience. Again, Warren was the best actor in the movie, but "Fume" and "Sailor" both played their parts well.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Before I start, I should point out that I know the editor of this film. We've never met, but we belong to the same fanzine(those things which came before message boards), and we have talked on the phone, so I do have a bias here. Anyway...

Somehow, it's ironic how while the "Rat Pack" culture of the late 50's and early to mid-60's made a comeback in the mid-90's, this movie, from the son of one of the original Rat Pack, and which was made in a similar fashion, was a flop. Not only that, it was a critical flop; I believe Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was the only one who did not savage this(he gave it a mixed review, as I recall). And while I don't think this is the greatest film in the world, and I am not a fan of the Rat Pack, or "cocktail," culture, I do think this is worth seeing.

For one thing, this looks stylish, and moves right along. For another, the core performances are all good. Richard Dreyfus is surprisingly restrained here as the head gangster coming back from a sanitarium, and has a droll edge to him. Jeff Goldblum goes back to the quietly ironic performances he gave in his pre-blockbuster days, like THE BIG CHILL. And while Ellen Barkin is only required to vamp in this movie, she does it entertainingly. Admittedly, it's not a great film; the dialogue is mostly made up of puns, and a lot of them don't work(like the whole "Zen of Ben" speech). And Gabriel Byrne and Kyle MacLachlan are awful here. Still, I was entertained, and if you like gangster films, you might be too.