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

Answer: This is an excellent example of what can be done on a small budget movie. The acting is excellent considering the script & the whole atmosphere of the film is very foreboding. The gore is well done and used sparingly (look out for the excellent barbed-wire death) & the action is punchy when used. It's true that there are dodgy lines in the script at times, but compared to other movies on the same (or bigger!) budget, it's hardly noticeable at all. Overall, this is recommended. Trust me, it's better than it appears! 8/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.

Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.

This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.

Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.

Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: THE JIST: See something else.

This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy "noir" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.

This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.

The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.

Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.

Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.

It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.

It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.

The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.

There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.

This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.

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

Answer: I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM'S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn't really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count

Judging by this film version of TOM'S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn't have in the 1950s so I guess there's some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There's also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative

This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It's inoffensive but I'm surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who'd just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
A very unique Sci-Fi animated film, and frankly I love uniqueness no matter which way it tends to be, better or worse. This French film is quite interesting to watch, the technique part is innovatory, like "Waking Life" I recently watched.

It took me quite a long time to get used to the Black-White style, but eventually I love it, the sketchlike images are really fancy! The contracted future world is a symbol of human race's final destination which I adore it very much.

The whole plot is fine for a Sci-Fi, not so intriguing but it's OK, like some Hollywood's products, a giant conspiracy about human's eternity, a little bit cliche and the twisted ending is not so convincing, some development is just too plain and insipid, and the whole movie is too long.

So I think I'm just in love with the style this film shows, others are not so good.

About the eternity of life, I think most people have come to a unanimousness that we don't want eternity because it demolishes the meaning of life, we treasure our lives because they are limited and meaningful, if everyone can live forever, thus the world world will become a disaster and chaos. Leaving someone you love is hard and heartbreaking, but that's also a way to show our lives are genuine and all the emotion fulfills one's life and make the world colorful and lively.