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

A: Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.

This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.

Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.

Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.

Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.

Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.

Avoid it like the veritable plague.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it.

Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole "film" - "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!". Brilliant.

Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented.

The "film" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.

But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the "film" provides.

- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.

- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.

- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.

- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.

- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.

- The evil brother's cats.

- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul.

Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times.