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

A: Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze is a horrible movie. Poorly scripted, over-acted, and just plain silly. That being said... it is actually an enjoyable movie on some level. This movie begs to be watched in a group with an ample supply of cheap beer. It's one of those movies like "Santa Claus conquers the Martians" or "Yor, the Hunter from the Future"... so bad it is almost good. If you have the right group of people this movie is a blast to watch. It's campy. It's fun. It has a theme by Sousa. If you're looking for a good movie though, look elsewhere. 3/10.

BTW, I've heard rumors some studio is exploring the possibility of a remake...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.

What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.

In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.

What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.

Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.

For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)

This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.

I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This film is to my mind the weakest film in the original Star Wars trilogy, for a variety of reasons. However it emerges at the end of the day a winner, despite all its flaws. It's still a very good film, even if a lot of its quality depends on the characters that have been built up in the superior 2 installments.

One problem here is the look of the film, which isn't very consistent with the other 2 films. I put a lot of that down to the departure of producer Gary Kurtz. The first 2 films have that dirty, lived-in look with all the technology and so forth. In "Jedi" on the other hand even the rebels look like they just stepped out of a shower and had their uniforms dry cleaned. This makes for a much less textured film. Also the creatures were excessively muppet-like and cutesy. At this point it seems like the film-makers were more concerned with creating the templates for future action figures than with the quality of the film itself.

Another aspect is its lack of originality. Where "Star Wars" created a whole new experience in cinema and "Empire" brought us to alien worlds of swamps, ice, and clouds, "Jedi" lamely re-cycled the locations of the first film. First we are back on the desert planet Tatooine, and then we are watching them face ANOTHER death star (maybe the emperor couldn't think of anything new... but you'd think Lucas or Kasdan could). Also we have these ewoks, who really are just detestable made-for-mattel teddy bears, in a recycled version of what was supposed to be the big wookie-fight at the end of "Star Wars" if they hadn't run out of cash. It just feels like lazy construction.

The most unfortunate aspect of "Jedi" for me is the weak handling of the Han Solo character. Whereas he is central to the plot of the first 2 films here he is struggling for screen time, trading one liners with the droids. Instead of a real drama we're stuck with the lame pretense that Han is still convinced Leia loves Luke -- as if the conclusion of "Empire" where she confessed her love of him had never happened. The whole thing is very contrived and barely conceals the fact that the Solo character was not part of this film's central story after his rescue. Ford, for his part, looks bored and lacks the style that distinguished his earlier performances. This is more like a 1990s Ford performance, bored and looking "above" the film itself. Fisher for her part is visibly high in some scenes. Lando, an interesting character introduced in "Empire", here is stuck as the ostensible person we care about in the giant space battle. Only Hamill, given an interesting development in the Luke character, is really able to do anything new or interesting with his character. Probably he was the only major actor in the film who still cared about his work. And to be fair the script gives him a lot more to do than the other characters. Really it is his story and the other characters are only there as part of the package. Ian McDiarmid does excellent work as well as the Emperor. The film would sink if he had been too far over the top (as he was at times in the new films).

Visually and in terms of effects work, other than the "clean" look of everything it's hard to find fault. Jabba is a very effective animatronic character, one of the most elaborate ever constructed. The space battles towards the end are very impressive.

Ultimately this film coasts to success based on the accomplishments of its forebears. But on its own, it is a satisfying piece of entertainment and IMHO far superior to any of Lucas' later productions.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I must preface this by saying I am a huge romantic. Hence I really wanted to like this film. So I'm writing my thoughts to save the rest of you from the disappointment I felt watching it. The Leap Years tells the destiny-filled tale of Li-Ann who falls for the suave Jeremy and they commit to meet every leap year. A very romantic premise, based on a great short story and with a cast that doesn't feel like you're watching yet another Jack Neo flick. Then why oh why is it so bad? Firstly, I feel the filmmakers thought they were shooting a music video, because they chose to replace storytelling and any true emotions with cheesy montages, predictable actions and cliched lines. I am both upset and embarrassed to have been one of the first few in Singapore to watch The Leap Years, but those of us in the cinema would agree that our muffled groans at the cringe-worthy performances spoke volumes. My hope was to watch a romantic movie that would surpass Forever Fever, the best Singaporean romantic comedy so far, and The Leap Years does not even come close. Some blogs have called it The Crap Years which is harsh but ultimately true. Don't waste your money or your emotions like I did. The movie will make you give up on love forever.