Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This documentary (or I should say mockumentary) is the perfect example of how ridiculous can the people be, when they have full enthusiasm on something like that. Honestly, I hate Cryptozoology. It is unscience, it just destroy it. However, something positive in this was the visual effects (dragons were beautiful), but some of the information in this mockumentary was totally fake, and that is really disappointing because it was coming from scientists, so that is the reason why it deserves a 1 of 10 and not a 0. An example of false information would be the hydrogen idea: It is true that, according to Chemystry, the hydrogen is produced in the stomach but it is impossible to be produced in that proportions, so in that case, you need a good explanation of what really happens in a dragon stomach. There are a lot of substances whit hydrogen in the nature but not the necessary to aloud an animal like that to fly, and the hydrogen does not appear from nothing, so it is impossible. Anyway, there is actually something worse, the idea of the platinum: This element is more difficult to find than gold, and I cannot explain myself how dragons survive depending of that. It is ridiculous, they present dragons like creatures with low chances of conquering the planet Earth, but off course at least that explain why they got extincted. Probably cryptologist's call themselves scientists, but they are not. People like them say lies like in this mockumentary, and what is worst, some people buy them. But I do not think that a person who cares about Science would believe in dragons after watching this. Those fake scientists waste their time.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.

Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.

The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.

If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'll tell you what happened, some people with money thought it would be nice to ruin one of the best shows that was on TV. Did we really need a big screen re-make? Did they ask the fans? I wonder how all the fans would feel if they did a remake of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" with actors like Ashton Krutcher, Steve Martin, Britney Spears, and Kiefer Southerland, took out all the music, and made it a drama. Do you think they would like that! This movie does not have the same feel to it that the original had. Sure the original was a bit corny at times, but Bo and Luke were always nice, they got into trouble because they were always set up to get into trouble, and their main objective was to help people that passed through town. None of that mattered to the people that made this film, they might have never even seen the original show all the way through. My big question is, what will they ruin next?
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I can't tell you all how much I love this movie. I have read reviews that say that this move is "too confusing" or "like swimming in drying concrete". I say that these reviewers have no imagination! For anyone who loves Fantasy Fiction, this movie is for you. If you ever loved playing Dungeons & Dragons... this movie is for you, (especially if you got into the Oriental Adventures) I'm just sorry that I did not get to see this movie on the big screen. (Just more incentive to get my own big screen t.v. :-)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush.

Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. "Homo-erotic" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what?

Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from "Lives of the Saints," "A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified." The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here.

Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: "Mother and Son" (1997); "The Return" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); "Little Odessa" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov."

Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess.

This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, "Russian Ark" (2003).

As in his "Mother and Son," an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.

An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as "themes based on Tchaikovsky." The presence of a "sound designer" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are "designed."

It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.

Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ...