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

A: A must see by all - if you have to borrow your neighbors kid to see this one. Easily one of the best animation/cartoons released in a long-time. It took the the movies Antz to a whole new level. Do not mistake the two as being the same movie - although in principle the movies plot is similiar. Just go and enjoy.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Legend of Zu is possibly the most exciting movie ive seen in recent years. It transcends all expectations and is truly a work of art. With unmatched visual sceneries and story of divine proportions, Legend of Zu proceeds to blow over its viewers with its majesty. This movie is wonderously crafted through the use of high tech cgi which allows fans of the fantasy genre to see their visions come to life. The acting is perfect for this type of movie; if you were an immortal with supernatural powers I would think you'd keep more to yourself.

Unlike the comments of many, the plot is actually quite EASY to follow while maintaining a quick pace that adds a sense of urgency. Anyone that cannot keep track of the different characters simply must not be paying attention since or are used to such levels of sophistication as the titanic. The plot is engaging and layered with themes so epic that they will leave you gasping for air. Legend of Zu is on a level of greatness so high that perhaps many people are put off by its grandeur. Allow yourself to be completely engulfed within its fantastical vision and you will grow to love this movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.

Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")

This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...

(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...

In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.

By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...

this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.

there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.

i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.

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

A:
In 1979, I was a boy of 12 years old, My parents had just got the home box office which was pretty new to our neighborhood. As a 12 year old boy, this was the first time I saw boobs on television. I will never forget the joy of those times. Racing vans, the total ass-wipe with the baddest van, the water bed, the smoking of herbs, the hot 70's chicks, the 'makin love in my Chevy van song, it was all so new to me. A complete movie with all of the memories you could hope for. I own it and enjoy it about once a year. When I watch this movie, it makes me want to get my skates, with 4 wheels, not in a strait line, go to the park and hunt down some babes with feathered hair. truly great memories of young adolescence!