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

A: Shintaro Katsu, who played the blind swordsman "Zatoichi" in a total of 27 movies, ends the Hanzo trilogy with this excellent film in which he gets to make love to a ghost, Mako Midori (Blind Beast).

The big stick, used often in the pursuit of justice, is retired forever.

Katsu was his usual impudent self as he pursued those who would steal from the treasury to lend at usurious amounts to those who could not afford to pay.

The usual amazing swordplay and skill of the big guy was present, along with the blood.

I'm going to miss him.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I must admit that I had my doubts about this movie before I was going to watch it. The main reason for that is because it was compared to a Hitchcock movie. I've seen several movies that were said to be inspired by Hitchcock or that could have been made by the 'Master of Suspense' himself, but so far I haven't seen any of these movie that would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion Hitchcock has become a household name which is too easily used to promote some (cheap) thrillers, but on the other hand I must admit that I was intrigued by it because this is a European movie. Normally it's the big Hollywood studios who like to abuse Hitchcock's name if that can raise their income. But this movie was made in one of the most chauvinistic European countries ever and I'm sure that most French would rather drop dead than to admit that their movies have been inspired by an Englishman. That's why I decided to give this movie a try and I must say that I'm glad that I did.

"Sur mes levres" or "Read my Lips" as it is called in English, tells the story of a young secretary named Carla. She is a hardworking and loyal employee, but has never been very appreciated by her colleagues. That has much to do with the fact that she suffers from a hearing deficiency, which has denied her to climb up on the hierarchical ladder of the company. But when she is allowed to hire a trainee that can work for her, all this is about to change. Paul Angeli is a 25 year old and completely unskilled ex-convict. The man is a thief, but Carla gives him a chance and covers for him when needed. She hopes to teach him what a regular life should look like, but at the same time he drags her with him in his old life...

Since I still believe that the name Hitchcock is used too often to describe a very good thriller - which this movie definitely is - I will not make any comparisons between Hitchcock and Jacques Audiard's directing. Fact is that the man has done a really good job with this movie. I hadn't heard of him before, but it is true that he knows how to build up suspense and how to keep you interested from the beginning until the end. That also has a lot to do with the very fine and original story of course. I doubt if there is someone in Hollywood who has ever come up with the idea of using a handicapped woman in a powerful role, instead of making her the helpless subject of an abusive husband (you know, the typical TV-movie story).

Also worth noticing is the acting in this movie. Vincent Cassel is quite famous, but Emmanuelle Devos was a complete mystery to me. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about their roles, but they both did an excellent job with their characters, making them feel very believable and realistic. Paul could have been the average tough guy right out of jail and Carla the typically helpless woman, but thanks to their performances, you really believe that these are two strong people who both have had some bad luck in life but who will make the best out of it together.

All in all this is a powerful movie with a very fine script and some excellent acting. Despite the fact that I had my doubts about it, I've soon become one of its greatest admirers. I give this movie an 8/10. Don't hesitate to give it a try.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).

Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.

Also, everything in the movie was so cliche. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.

Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliche.

If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie.

What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.

What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I loathed this film. The original Phantasm had such wonderful ambiance and mystery. Like many 70s horror flicks, it looked and felt like some creepy, unfinished documentary. Phantasm II, from the late 80s, pumped up the action, but maintained this nice attention to mood. Sadly, Phantasm III is just awful. It tediously explains all of the weird happenings in the previous films, which diminishes rather than expands their power. It shamelessly degrades imagery from the first Phantasm like a cheap reenactment of the original. There are so many flying spheres in this movie that they seem more like household pests than menacing death orbs. Hundreds hang from the ceiling like Christmas balls swaying in the draft. Didn't anyone-- the prop master, the DP, the editor, the director-- notice or care that they looked so crummy? Even worse, Phantasm III presents one corny, unfunny joke after another. How different from the intensity of the first film. The original Phantasm used humor to relieve its relentless focus on death. Phantasm III uses death to set up countless cheap jokes about Reggie's horniness: several refer to the film's "flying balls" ha-ha, oh, I get it, balls. Maybe the crew got a kick out of these jokes, but they are on us.