Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first!

There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.

What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.

Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This period melodrama is one of Griffith's earliest claustrophobic films. Characters trapped within a room are prevalent throughout his work and, as time went by, he would become increasingly adept at portraying their helplessness and involving the audience in their terror. In the bluntly titled Sealed Room there is one major difference to the normal plot line, in that there truly is no escape.

Griffith achieves the claustrophobic effect here in two ways. First is his use of space. While the typical Biograph short might utilise a dozen or more sets, The Sealed Room features only two adjoining rooms the king's court and the dove cote that becomes the eponymous tomb. The set design in these shorts is rarely referenced, but here it is crucial. The court is a large interior, with a backdrop hinting at greater depth and showing us a window and a staircase. Actors enter and leave from various directions, suggesting the room is not only spacious but also free and open. By contrast the dove cote's back wall is very close to the camera, and the angles in it suggesting a hexagonal or octagonal shape make it seem even more confined.

The second technique on display here is the cross-cutting. Anyone with an interest in Griffith's work will probably know about his heavy use and development of cross-cutting to build excitement or tension. Many will also know that strictly speaking it wasn't his invention. However what makes Griffith's cross-cuts so effective is the way he paces the opposing images so they complement each other. The Sealed Room contains a good example of what I mean. The shots of the masons shifting the heavy bricks have a slow, step-by-step pace to them, with tension building as the wall gets higher. This movement is matched by the shots of the blissfully unaware lovers, in which Marion Leonard tears off flower petals one-by-one. As the couple realise their predicament, their rising panic is complemented by the opposing shot of the king madly thrashing his sword against the wall.

At this point, Griffith was yet to realise that the action could be heightened further by introducing a third strand to the cross-cut. The dramatic "ride-to-the-rescue", here absent, was later to become a standard climax to Griffith's pictures.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is a nice little horror flick that fans of indie films will really appreciate. It has good acting, lots of gore, and a decent plot. One will be reminded of movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Pumpkinhead. It's obvious that the budget was not all that big, but the film really makes up for it with atmosphere and solid performances by the actors, which seems to be lacking in a lot of today's big budget special effects-filled films. The film really moves along and there is excellent direction and good camera work. There are no wasted scenes, so the film's length is a bit short. In addition, it looks like the ending leaves an opening for a sequel, which would be very interesting as well. So grab some popcorn, turn down the lights and enjoy this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay.

Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the "WORST performance and any role till date" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.

If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.