Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a 'mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by 'The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiance of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): 'Demonio' ('Devil')
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie took me by complete surprise. I watched it 2 or 3 times. I really liked this film. There were many truths this movie brought up. I love all the characters in this film as well. This movie makes a lot of sense because as society "becomes more advance" What does the culture loose? Not to sound preachy. I can really relate to this movie from my child hood and loosing apart of my life that will never come back or ever been the same. This film is on my top 5 movies I have ever watched. There is just such a raw truth that I feel when I watch the movie and its not the kind of truth that you have to dig for its right in front of your face. The creators of this film did a great job and I enjoyed this movie very much. This movie may not be for every one but if you have an open mind I think you will love it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I was born in 1982. Most of my childhood memories are in the extreme late 80's and 90's. I watched the Groove Tube for the first time in 2001, when I was 19.

And I found it hilarious.

So for anybody who thinks that something "dated" can't be quite funny 30 years later....think again! It's funny even if you have no idea what the 70's were like, and the thought of bell-bottom pants make you cringe. Who can argue with a Bozo the Clown type who reads adult literature? There is plenty to laugh at. The scrotal puppet show at the end is the best.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we the film viewers perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.

Slavoj Zizek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by Zizek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting Zizek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide is Zizek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, Zizek's views or Zizek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (Zizek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide is dominated by his voice delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.

What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.

Most notable are Zizek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of Zizek's lecture memorable and unlike others difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).

The question isn't whether Zizek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are Zizek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) Zizek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously "unreadable" French psychoanalyst is fundamental to Zizek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when Zizek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: "I want to f**k Mitch!"). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. Zizek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of Zizek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.

The ultimate question is: did Zizek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach Zizek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer.