Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.

It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.

It has its points such as the future is dirty, like "Blade Runner" showed ..... of course, this is no "Blade Runner". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.

But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad "Andromeda" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of "Aliens", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on "Danger Island" in the "Banana Splits"; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in "Andromeda".

It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.

It's ..... "okay". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.

For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: just below the surface lies what? a simply awful movie is what.

as other viewers have justifiably commented, the storm sequences are just plain ridiculous. chopping already sodden firewood in the pouring rain? now that's smart. menace? foreboding? sexual tension? for those read dull & contrived, dull & contrived and dull & overly contrived.

i want to say thank god for mia sara's shower scene but in retrospect i think the producers of the film, having seen the completed mess realised that they had to put something in to make it half way worthwhile at all. so it just becomes yet another contrivance. do yourself a favour and give this a miss.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.

Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.

I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.

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

Answer: Not a bad film. Somehow I was made to actually root for the Iranians to win the game played in the movie even though I don't know anything about soccer and am not a fan. The ending on the bus was exhilarating.

The film itself deals with the issue of women in Iran, and how they are not allowed to go into sporting arenas amongst men because their swearing is inappropriate for women to hear. Despite this law, some women try to sneak in, but many of them get caught and detained. It's really astonishing that any society could still have such antiquated notions of gender. In an interview, Panahi says his films are documents of history and its injustices, and that one day in the future we can watch these movies and see how Iran once lived. One hopes that future will come sooner rather than later.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler's father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler's childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler's fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl's own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn't follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
A wonderful film version of the best-selling book and smash Broadway play about the lives of Sadie and Bessie Delany, two African-American sisters who both lived over the age of 100 and told their story of witnessing a century of American history. Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll give very good performances as Bessie and Sadie, respectively. Amy Madigan also is good as Amy Hill Hearth, the white New York Times reporter whose article about the sisters launched the book, etc. Many of the flashback scenes and even many of the present-day ones are very powerful, if not quite as inspirational as in the book. That is the only real drawback, combined with the fact that certain aspects of the story are not presented clearly, such as the inter-racial background of the sisters' mother and why their father was so stern. But other than that, a very well-done, excellently performed, powerful movie.