Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as "artistic", or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This has to be one of my favourite flicks, unlike the weak 'Elvira's Haunted Hills'...anyway I love the way the movie is a goth/com 'Wizard of Oz' story...

Elvira is a goth Dorothy who is stranded in an unfamiliar town after the death of a Good Witch (elviras Aunt Morgana)...she inherits a "Ruby" ring which is extremely powerful and sought after by the Bad Warlock (Her uncle)...She befriends four Characters whom she inadvertently helps grow throughout the movie all the while with a dog in tow. There is a show down with her uncle (the wicked witch of the West) where Elvira realises that she has the strength within her and ends up defeating him. In the end she gets sent off by the towns folk after winning over their hearts and finally gets to her destination Las Vegas (Dorothy's home in Kansas).

There are many references made to the wizard of oz throughout the movie...she and her uncle both quote lines relevant to their parallel characters. Elvira: "Youe must be aunt Em, and you must be uncle Remus....There's no place like home, there's no place like home!" Bad uncle Vinny: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!"

There is a sign that Elvira passes when first on her road trip which mentions the state of Kansas.

But aside from this, the fact that one of the sequences she "ripped off, um...I mean was inspired by FlashDance" is pure genius...and if you don't roll around laughing at her titty twirling at the end of her "very 80's" Las Vegas show then you haven't got a camp bone in your body...This movie is a Cult/Camp Classic
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I've seen a great many films, but 'In Cold Blood' stands alone in a class by itself. It excels in every department. The fact that it contained few big stars helps push it over the top as you pay closer attention to the characters and their story, rather than the name on the marquee. Blake and Wilson turn in stellar performances of the killer duo. The fact that much of the films is filmed in the actual locations where the crime took place, even inside the very house, add additional chills. The black/white photography darkens the mood and the photography is magnificent. There are many outstanding cinematic works out there, but if I could only vote for one to top the list, it would most probably be "In Cold Blood".
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Almost as tedious to watch as it was to read, Evening is a gorgeously produced failure...until Meryl Streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. Vanessa Redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying Ann and Claire Danes is a cipher. Perhaps if Vanessa and Claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young Ann that gave her entree to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older Ann actually was dying.

I was hoping the addition of Michael Cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. It gave me a headache.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences:

1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.

2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.

3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.

Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.

I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.

That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.

If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.

Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.

Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.

For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.