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

A: One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.

This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.

From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.

This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.

Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!

I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:

1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint

I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list??
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The critics are dumb. This movie is funny and smart. I loved this movie a lot. Why does everyone hate this movie so much. I wish people would love this movie more than they don't. Ben Stiller and Jack Black are true comedians and they put through a lot of work to make this movie. I don't see you people out there making movies like them. So people should just watch it and not comment it. I like this movie. It is OK through it all. There are parts were it get's dumb but at least they made it. Jerry Stiller would love this because this movie has the acting just like the show King Of Queens. But this is better than that. I can't believe this was rated so low.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Hanna-Barbera sucks the life out of another famous property. The violence is watered down, the stories are formulaic, the animation is bad, the music is obnoxious and repetitive, and frankly, the show just isn't funny.

At the time, H-B put every one of its series through the same cliched situations, regardless if it fit the world of the cartoon or not. Thus, Popeye and Bluto appear in a recurring segment as cavemen ("Hey! Popeye is popular, and the Flinstones are popular. Put 'em together, and you can't miss!"). Also, in an apparent ripoff of "Private Benjamin," Olive Oyl and the Goon have a regular segment that features them as new army recruits. Seriously! Why?

Adding to the annoyance factor are the public service announcements in every episode (standard practice at the time for cartoons, but still annoying). Popeye lectures his nephews on crossing the street safely, recycling, and - are you ready for this? - the dangers of smoking! (I swear I'm not making that up.)

The only charm remaining from the original cartoons is that Jack Mercer, the voice of Popeye from the early days, continues the role here.

Worth checking out once just to get a new appreciation for the old Fleischer shorts. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.