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

Answer: This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The story of this film is truly remarkable. A virus cut loose and only 1% of the human race survived. The only thing we know now is that animals rule the land above and there are posters everywhere that say, "The Twelve Monkeys did it." Thats right, the human race had to hide underground from the sickness that had killed over 500 Billion people. Apparently animals do not contract this disease. Day by day the present scientist try to discover what type of sickness had caused this; how it was created; if nature did it or a mere human being had created it. All they know is that there is are a bunch of animals running around a city above them, the deaths began during 1996-1997, and twelve monkeys have something to do with it. (Or at least thats what the poster says.) So a current convict named James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent as a "volunteer" to get some samples from above. After he does his "volunteer" work, he is asked to be sent back in time to the year 1996 to figure out what happened to the world. Cole accepts and the story of the Twelve Monkeys begin.

Throughout the story the time machine gets the dates wrong quite a few times, from 1990, to some time during the 1950's. (In a middle of a war.) Throughout the time traveling back and forth, it starts to mess James up in the head and that twist the story up. The whole story is very well done and I would of gave it a higher grade if it wasn't for the ending. I personally didn't like the ending of the movie and I was very disappointed. I just was expecting a more explaining ending then what had happen, but it isn't everyone who thinks this way. So I gave it a 8, but if everyone had the same opinion as me I would give it a 6 or 7.

For the whole acting of the film, I give it a A+. Bruce Willis is great for this role and he acts good, but Brad Pitt is completely 100% excellent. His acting is so great, he gets into the character so well. I never really cared for Brad Pitt in till I saw him in this and Fight Club. There characters or similar in this film, he is just a little more... insane in this film. So overall I think this film is completely worth checking out. For most people it's a great science fiction film, I just don't think it is a masterpiece.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I honestly had no idea that the Notorious B.I.G. (Bert I. Gordon the director; not the murdered rapper) was still active in the 80's! I always presumed the deliciously inept "Empire of the Ants" stood as his last masterful accomplishment in the horror genre, but that was before my dirty little hands stumbled upon an ancient and dusty VHS copy of "The Coming", a totally obscure and unheard of witchery-movie that actually turned out a more or less pleasant surprise! What starts out as a seemingly atmospheric tale of late Dark Ages soon takes a silly turn when a villager of year 1692 inexplicably becomes transferred to present day Salum, Massachusetts and promptly attacks a girl in the history museum. For you see, this particular girl is the reincarnation of Ann Putman who was a bona fide evil girl in 1692 and falsely accused over twenty people of practicing witchcraft which led to their executions at the state. The man who attacked Loreen lost his wife and daughter this and wants his overdue revenge. But poor and three centuries older Loreen is just an innocent schoolgirl, or is she? "Burned at the Stake" unfolds like a mixture between "The Exorcist" and "Witchfinder General" with a tad bit of "The Time Machine" thrown in for good measure. Way to go, Bert! The plot becomes sillier and more senseless with every new twist but at least it never transcends into complete boredom, like too often the case in other contemporary witchcraft movies like "The Dunwich Horror" and "The Devonsville Terror". The film jumps back and forth between the events in present day and flashbacks of 1692; which keeps it rather amusing and fast-paced. The Ann Putman girl is quite a fascinating character, reminiscent of the Abigail Williams character in the more commonly known stage play "The Crucible" (also depicted by Winona Ryder in the 1996 motion picture). There are a couple of cool death sequences, like the teacher in the graveyard or the journalist in the library, that are committed by the ghost of malignant reverend who made a pact with Ann Putman and perhaps even the Devil himself. The film gets pretty spastic and completely absurd near the end, but overall there's some good cheesy fun to be had. Plus, the least you can say about Bert I. Gordon is that he definitely build up some directorial competences over the years.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.

The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.

Thank gosh I didn't pay for it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiance. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiance, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.