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

A: Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.

Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.

Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is proof that the great genius Orson Welles could direct a "mainstream" movie if he wanted to. By comparison to his other, more artistic works, this film has only a moderate amount of craftiness, and almost no esoteric elements.

The exception being, of course, the final scene in the hall of mirrors, widely agreed to be one of the greatest scenes in the history of film. It alone is worth the cost of a rental.

The sweet surprise was the superb acting by the beautiful Rita Hayworth. Her acting during the beginning and middle of the film is so excellent, she made the other actors appear as caricatures instead of characters. Even the great Mr. Welles.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Casting Jack Cassidy as Ken Frankin was sheer brilliance. Cassidy personified arrogance, confidence, charm and wit - all with a condescending, evil little smirk on his face. In my opinion, Jack Cassidy is by far the best murderer (having appeared three times) in the Columbo series. This particular (and first) performance, is my favorite Columbo episode ever - hands down. A fresh faced Steven Spielberg did amazing camera work (yes, there were a couple of camera shadows on the actors at times)capturing the nuances and banter at different and intriguing angles between Columbo and Franklin. Also, the panoramic and tight in shots at Big Bear Lake, CA (Franklin's cabin home) were very impressive.

If you have not yet seen this episode, then you owe it to yourself to do so - it's a true masterpiece.

Jack Cassidy was a very talented actor and singer. His charismatic personality was highly infectious. His death in 1976, at age 49 was very sad and indeed very tragic - he surely had his best years ahead of him. Rest in Peace Jack, you will live on for eternity through your great work.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: 'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
It's a while ago, that I have seen Sleuth (1972) with two great actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. Michael Caine is back, but he is now the husband and Jude Law the lover of his wife. The story is still the same and it's a fantastic play.

During the movie I always had the feeling to watch a play. That's one of the reasons I dislike this remake of a classic. When I watch a movie adapted a play I still must feel to see a movie and not just a play. Director Kenneth Brannigan did some marvelous movies in the past, but this time he missed. Another reason was the look of the movie. The design was modern, stylish clean, uncomfortable and cold. I never got the feeling that somebody ever lived in that house. The photography wasn't bad, but the lightening was awful. Sometimes there was blue light, dark, green light, to round it up not friendly for eyes.

The acting was really good. Michael Caine's and Jude Law's perform at their best. I really would like to see these 2 guys playing together on stage. But I have to confess I never was a fan of Jude Law. The weakest part was the mid part. I remember that in the original that this part was still very mysterious and just marvelous directed. I tried to watch it twice and always in the mid part I felt asleep. The end part is better and more interesting. Sleuth (2007) isn't awful, but it seems to be more a movie for critics than for the audience. Sleuth (1972) is still a masterpiece and much more entertaining than Sleuth (2007).