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

A: This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Direction must be the problem here. I recently heard John Cleese speaking of working a skit for Fawlty Towers. He was supposed to attack his car with a branch. The first branch was too flimsy and not funny. The second branch was too stiff to be funny. The third was just flimsy enough to be funny. This sort of attention to detail is missing from "Corky Romano". No matter how embarrassingly unfunny a comic bit was, it wasn't fixed, and wasn't left on the cutting room floor. The one value I can find in this movie is as a study of a very flawed movie which somehow escaped into distribution without being repaired.

I've scanned dozens of other reviews here. The number of reviews praising this absolute waste of time bolsters my suspicion that some people are getting paid to promote titles. I can't fathom how anyone over the age of 9 could rate this title more than a 4, MAX. I mean, come on, 5 is average. I can't imagine anyone, even those making money off of this, rating it even as much as average.

This makes my list of the 10 worst movies of all time. And, hey, I actually LIKE the Three Stooges and can even tolerate Ed Wood!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihaescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminica la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Special effects? Good.

Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.

Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.

This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.

Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.

And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.

Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: John Waters most accessible film to date is one of his better ones, considering it cut down on all of the campiness and outright vulgarity which seem to litter most of his previous work. Sure, the nudity and the sexual references are still there, at least it is presented in a fashion

that cannot be deemed too foul or disgusting. Due to some great casting choices, this film really brought out the silliness associated with modern art and the subjective nature of your modern artist. Funny and somewhat lighthearted (if that is possible for Waters), this is one of those films I would watch on a rainy day.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay?

In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid.

Jason Vanness