Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:

It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:

There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these "stunt posteriors" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, "reveal" themselves!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: When I heard the plot for this movie I simply had to see it, I mean whole cities being wiped out by killer tomatoes! Sadly the title is about as funny as it gets.

Led by Detective Dick Mason, a special team of military and scientists (including Greg Colburn who never takes his SCUBA outfit off and Lt. Finletter who is never pictured without his parachute trailing behind) 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' is a parody of B-Movies, in particular Japanese horror of the 1950's. The film begins with a standard sized tomato being discovered by a women washing up in her kitchen before we find ourselves in a middle of a crime scene as the tomato has supposedly murdered this lady, and let me tell you it doesn't get any saner as the film progresses! To be fair there are a couple of funny moments, for instance anytime the Japanese scientist Dr Nokitofa speaks his voice is dubbed over in an American accent, or when disguise expert Sam Smith infiltrates the tomatoes 'hey, can somebody please pass the ketchup?'. Equally this film was probably a lot funnier in 1978 with the whole so bad its good concept. Unfortunately for 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' spoof films such as the 'Airplane' and 'Naked Gun' series have been released and done this kind of comedy a lot better since.

The acting is atrocious; there is zero continuity in the editing and it just feels genuinely slow and lacking energy. For a parody film to work you need a lot of things happening at once, one gag after the over. The singing in the film seems pointless and the adverts for the furniture store that flash across the screen are damn right bizarre, even for this film. Ultimately, however, you can see why this film is a cult one; I can't see many people being indifferent to it. Unfortunately terrible would be the way I would sum this up.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and wait

He makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this film

OK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?

We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?

We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well

We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedy

We have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at all

We have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other stories

We have John- Vidya story a good story in all respects

But then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it works

Actors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a change

Sohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissal

Priyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?

Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.

Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.

There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show.

Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is a film that can make you want to see it again. I especially, liked the way it ended. I did not see the end coming, but when Laws was not blown away the first time, one suspects he will be back again.

The story is gripping and could have been more psychological, but I understand the story needed to capture the viewer and the action was necessary for that.

Hard to believe Michael Jr. could be so apparently unmoved as his younger brother and mother as blown away. But, I can appreciate the scene play couldn't really take our attention there because it had a greater story to tell.

Some have complained about Hanks as a gangster. I believe that isn't justified. If his character had been any harder, he would not have cared if his son pulled a trigger or not.

Eight Stars for this one. Although it was released in 2002, I just saw it for the first time yesterday on DVD.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?