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

Answer: Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!

I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).

Basic story line:

Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.

a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic

Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!

The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?

In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum

Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in this movie?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a

script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours

long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives?

Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom

Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can

with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But

characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is

non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to

put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate

choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone

actually attempt to actually watch this film.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I recently bought this movie with a bunch of other LaserDiscs from eBay. Usually, I am into war and action movies but occasionally I enjoy romantic comedies.

If you are bored by today's special FX films and high gloss romantic comedies you should check out Shop Around the Corner on a quiet evening. What I like about the movie is that the characters have a lot of decency. There is nothing fake or pretentious about them. Take Mr. Matuschek for example: When he finds out that his wife is cheating on him with one of his own employees he tries to shot himself. Not just because of the humiliation but because he has been unjust to the character of Stewart. (OK, weired example.)

Yes, the focus of the movie is narrow and the plot is predictable. Yet still, I liked it a lot. If you likes Notting Hill then you will like Shop around the corner. in fact, Hugh Grant reminds me a lot of Jimmy Stewart.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have seen this movie a while back, after ordering it for my friend, who is a big Dominic Monaghan fan. The movie itself was very interesting, though it had its positive points, which for me was the Donnie Darko kind of "wtf?" factor after the movie had ended.

Of course, with positive also come negative points. To me, the young girl in the film was incredibly good, and Dominic Monaghan did a good job as well. Unfortunately I don't have this opinion about Daniel Burke, who played Lonnie. This might just be me, and I'm not claiming to be a serious critic, in the way that I don't find myself skilled enough, but he just didn't seem convincing as an actor. But perhaps it's even more striking then, for although I am not a critic, this does get my attention.

To conclude, over all I think it's definitely a film worth watching. It's interesting, confusing, and you just should have seen it.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
If you like Star Wars/Trek, come see where they got all their ideas and cinematic devices. It's my top 2 favorite movies of all times, other-worldly-futuristic and psycho-thriller. The intensity of the root material (Shakespeare's "The Tempest") is not overshadowed by whizbang gimmickry (a la later Lucas). And just because it was made in 1956, don't assume you can 'see the strings' holding the flying saucer up. This was the first movie where you COULDN'T. Miracle it was made at "A-movie" scale, economics and tastes at the time were stacked heavily against it. And director Wilcox's previous 'hit' was "Lassie Come Home". Until I looked him up, I assumed 'Fred Wilcox' was a pseudonym for a director who was already or later became famous, but at the time didn't want to be associated with sci-fi, which was strictly a "B" genre back then. This was either a very VERY visionary production, or a very fortuitous 'mistake' on the part of the folks who bankroll Hollywood.

There are the massive-scale mattes with live action almost microscopically inserted that Lucas used extensively. There are intelligent machines that transcend the stereotypical 'user interface'; "computers", as they've come to be portrayed much less futuristically in later works. Star Trek's 'transporter' is there, visually, almost unaltered by Roddenberry 10 years later. And if the Trek/Wars technobabble turns you off, FP's scientific references are not overdone and are all accurate, even today. The "ship" set is comprehensive, sparklingly realistic, as good as anything you've seen since, and more convincing than anything 'Trek' has done, for TV or film. We didn't get to spend as much time there as I would have liked.

If you ever wondered how movies got into space so competently, watching FP will explain all that. It's definitely not 'Wagontrain to the Stars'.