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

Answer: This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.

But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.

It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I went to a screening of this movie and while it had a couple moments that made me laugh, it had some very major flaws. It first of all presents itself to be the humorous exploits of a real-life divorcee trying to find love in LA. What it morphs into is a depressing, narcissistic, and unfunny romp through the history of the film director's love life and professional life. Jokes wear thin quickly and you find yourself suddenly not caring how this man's dates progress. The ridiculousness is that the director simultaneously presents himself as an extremely annoying and heavily flawed character and then expects us to be concerned.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.

The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.

((SPOILERS END HERE))

What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Actually, the answer only occupies a tiny portion of this excellent Imax movie that educates us on our delicate selves. C.G. and special cameras--assisted by Imax--incredibly display the inner (and outer) workings of an average human, be it adult men and women, boys and girls, or babies. Nearly every human body part aspect is specifically detailed: digestion, reproduction (featuring a Marvin Gaye hit), the heart, etc. Some especially revealing moments include how an infant can be immersed underwater and also how the brain's impulses look. It is amazing how we function.

The subject matter skips around an awful lot. But at all times we still learn a hell of a lot about our bodies that we should be *required* to know.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
As B movies go, it was well above average (I warn the reader now that I may reveal certain key elements of the plot or other parts of the movie, although I am trying to minimise any such tendency). As sequels usually go, it was utterly fantastic(despite a "cookie cutter" approach to trying to copy certain elements from the original movie verbatum. Despite this sometimes tedious tendency, it seemed to work in this particular film, so long as the viewer could divorce his attention from comparisons to the original "Scanners").

The movie was similar in ways to the "Superman" series, in terms of the main character's description of his early childhood and relationship with his parents (who seemed modelled along the same lines as the Kents in the "Superman" stories) and the theme of a morally pure hero possessed of extraordinary powers from an early age, etc. The depiction of profound feelings of alienation of prodigious or otherwise non-conforming children, adolescents and/or adults was a theme which reminded me of films such as "Real Genius", and (to a more superficial degree) "Doctor Mordrid" and struck a particularly strong chord.

The film had a positive message, and was fun to watch. I found some of the insights and accuracy (in terms of depiction of certain aspects of paranormal experiences) fascinating, and even profoundly touching at times. These moments occasionally appeared from among all of the great formula-driven schlock and gratuitous sex(uality, in this case, as the sexual elements were tastefully done) and violence that makes B movies (or Shakespearian plays, for that matter!) so much fun to watch!

This is a must watch for all comic book, Sci-fi, "remote viewing" enthusiasts, and horror fans! With the right exposure in the right circles, the film could develop quite a cult following, along with the original "Scanners".