Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Lifetime did it again. Can we say stupid? I couldn't wait for it to end. The plot was senseless. The acting was terrible! Especially by the teenagers. The story has been played a thousand times! Are we just desperate to give actors a job? The previews were attractive and I was really looking for a good thriller.Once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie, this isn't one of them. Unless one has nothing else to do I would avoid this one at all cost. This was a waste of two hours of my life. Can I get them back? I would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. That would have been more entertaining.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Given its time of release, the story that unravels in 1950 thriller 'Panic in the Streets' was hardly a surprise. The corpse of a mysterious illegal immigrant is found and passed off as a nobody until further examination from a public health inspector who claims the corpse carries a strain of bubonic plague. Yet with the current drama in the world today, this strangely helps this film in appearing credible for today's viewers. The cast and crew are flawless. Richard Widmark in his first role following his breakthrough performance in 'Night and the City,' Jack Palance in his chilling film debut, also starring in this film are Paul Douglas and a young (and rather cute) Barbara Bel Geddes. A whole slew of uncredited, non-professional actors (typical of director Kazan) fill in the remaining slots. Elia Kazan directs, Joe MacDonald films (he would later work with Richard Widmark again in 1953's much superior 'Pickup on South Street') and the great Alfred Newman scores it. Nearly everyone involved here has done better work, 'Panic in the Streets' is quite the rewarding watch, nonetheless. Especially for the film-noir enthusiast.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Another too bad the lowest they can go here is one. Otherwise this would get an easy zero. Truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact were Peckenpah's name not on the thing I would never have guessed he did it. Actually one of the people in San Francisco I know was on the set a lot and from nearly sunup on he says that Sam was just plain snockered. It shows in spades. The laughing bit at the early part of the film is the ONLY thing in this entire mess worth a second look. Not even Gig Young is watchable. This is a true test of masochism. Had I been forced into the confines of a theatre to see it I would have jumped up screaming. And now I truly feel guilty having watched it all from the confines of a very comfortable couch that was just too nice to leave. What a mess, it seemed less written than made up as they went along. It's not only a bomb but a bmob spelled backwards. Yikes!!!!!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.

Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.

The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?

Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.

Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.

The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.

The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.

Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Having looked at some of the other comments here, I have a main complaint with this presentation.

The two primary characters are attractive in their own ways - the beautiful "victim," and the handsome, obviously extremely "off-center," blue-collar protagonist (if just short of "totally-deranged") - take turns beating the hell out of each other, sort of like a Caucasian Kabuki scenario.

This is all right, and this is, of course, mainly a "turning-the-tables" story. However, my referenced complaint is that I believe the director got caught-up in his desire to display Farrah's well-known and obvious physical attributes. Beginning with her being enticingly clad in a thin robe, and with a number of scenes displaying more than needed for any dramatic effect - while immensely pleasing to the eyes, these distract from the poignancy level of the drama.

Her roommates I'm certain give performances as written and directed - however, their respective skepticism and histrionic babbling and sobbing, don't ring true -- based upon Farrah's previous experience with this guy, the obvious evidence of his having come to their premises with only the worst of intentions, and that she would have absolutely no grounds to be exaggerating what has occurred.

But this is a film and story, compelling as much in spite of, as because of, the director's work.