Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky.

For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility.

- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher.

- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target.

- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert.

- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping.

- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there.

- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?

There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.

Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.

Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?

If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie was amusing at times, hell sometimes it was even downright funny.

The underlying message I got from the film though, was that women are responsible for all of the troubles of man. Every time a woman is depicted in the film, she is being lazy, being slutty or lambasting some poor guy for no apparent reason. I don't think the message involved is good for women or gay men.

But, it is a comedy, and a piece of art, so it is simply someones point of view. Even if I don't agree with it, they are still entitled to it.

An amusing film, but some of the comments others have made are just plain stupid. Best film ever my foot.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.

Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.

This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.

Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B-