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

Answer: This movie wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a "potboiler".

Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.

There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.

Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.

Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!

Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.

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

A: I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.

In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.

Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.

The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I thought the racism and prejudice against Carl Brashear was grossly overdramatized for Hollywood effect. I do not believe the U. S. Navy was ever that overtly racist. I cannot imagine a full Captain, the Commanding Officer, ever telling his Chief to intentionally flunk anyone. Certainly not at the risk of his life. And there has never been a Chief Petty Officer as unabashedly prejudice against everybody but WASPs as DeNiro's character. No Chief as slovenly and drunken as he was played would have ever risen to Master Chief in the first place. Cuba Gooding saved an otherwise badly done movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Dr. Mordrid, what can I say? Jeffrey Combs has done it again!

Anton Mordrid has been on Earth for 100 years waiting for Kabal, an evil sorcerer, to come so he can kill him. Mordrid and Kabal used to train together as kids, so Mordrid knows all Kabal's tricks.

The film as a little bit confusing at begin with, but soon you feel a part of the action. I won't give away the ending, so go and watch Doctor Mordrid!

I found the film to be very enjoyable because it doesn't have a lot of violence in, nor sexual scenes. The film focused on the plot and that's what I like! I find the best films are the ones where times seems to fly by. This is because you are so engrossed in the film. Doctor Mordrid is a fantasticly engrossing movie! I give it a 20 out of 10. Worth seeing!