Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a totally delightful and unexpected film. You start by following a young person who hopes to get into the qualifying football game between Bahrain and Iran. If Iran win they will get into the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The problem is the young person is a girl and girls (or women for that matter) are not allowed into football matches to "sit with men". What follows is a wonderful comedy, played with consummate skill by a small ensemble cast. The film explores the absurdity of restrictions on the freedom of women (and for that matter the young soldiers who have to corral them). There are some excellent set pieces, not least when one of the girls must go to the toilet and, of course, the stadium has no toilets for women. The camera work is of the simplest and in some ways this story could have been told as a stage play. Yet it is the small scale that gives the film its bite. Great cinema? No, probably not; great entertainment - for sure.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.

At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.

***Careful, spoilers ahead***

It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliche sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say 'heavy handed?' I knew you could!

I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.

This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were 'Rabbi Ray explains it all' or 'Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.

I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.

I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I was lucky enough to have seen this on a whim during a film festival and was smacked so hard with what I saw I returned the next night for its second of three screenings. A funny, savage and sharp-toothed attack on every aspect of mainstream entertainment passively swallowed without tasting by the lowest-common-denominator target audience waged by a lone-avenger journalist who slowly takes in members for his guerilla-war on predictability is what the movie's all about, and is executed in such an unpredictable and refreshing way that you're left after the credits roll with hope renewed, and excited that original films can still be made. Anyone frustrated with unfulfilled expectations for something to light up their imaginations would do well to hunt (and I do mean hunt) this scarcely-seen item down. For fans of Fight Club and any Charlie Kaufman film, and required viewing for anyone who avoids multiplexes like a rabid dog.