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

A: I own 2 home entertainment stores and I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time but this one was so bad it compelled me to register here and comment on it. How bad was it? Let's just say that Sofia Coppola deserved an Oscar for her performance in Godfather III when compared to Giada Colagrande's in this movie.

It was robotic and uninspired. Her lover has just died one month prior to her arrival at the 'Rubber House' he had given her. Once there, she discovers he has cheated on her throughout her relationship but none of it seems to register with her. Within a day, she starts a relationship with Leslie, (Dafoe) the caretaker of the house. Even though she is married to Dafoe off screen, her scenes with him were cold and unemotional.

If there was a plot, I missed it. Not even Willem Dafoe could save this movie from the amateur, cinematic train wreck that it is.

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

A: This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years.

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

A:
This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.