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

Answer: Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together.

watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.

and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.

"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.

First we have the characters.

Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.

Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.

Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.

Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.

Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.

There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?

Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Legend of Zu

I remember well Tsui Hark's original Zu Warriors made 18 years earlier. Over one Christmas, on a rare week when Channel 4 in the UK showed a week of Hong Kong movies, Zu Warriors was so gripping for a very young viewer and his brother and so memorable, that it's been etched into the memory of the now grown up sprog...

In fact, I think the original Zu Warriors is one of the earliest films I saw as a kid that I can clearly recall the story line and action scenes from. And the memories of seeing Yuen Biao, Sammo Hung and others in their classic prime.

So when I saw this remake of Zu Warriors, there was a feeling of apprehension. Could it beat the dreamy childhood memories I had of the original, or will it follow the road of other remakes and die a death more horrible than the baddies and their broken necks you find in those kung fu movies?

Well the answer is I can't say. But that was because this isn't really a remake. The stories (and styles) are almost completely different.

The Legend of Zu tells of the story of King Sky, a lone warrior, whose master, Dawn, declares her love for him but her life is taken from her by a monster called Insomnia. Two hundred years later, Insomnia returns, Dawn is reincarnated as Enigma, and Insomnia has returned to destroy Zu. Meanwhile White Eyebrows and Red try, with the help of King Sky, to stop Insomnia.

The plot isn't one full of twists and turns, but had enough detail in it to keep me interested. But I can see this film as one you either love or you hate. The film is very much about the special effects, with the majority of it involving several computer generated environments, much like The Storm Riders and A Man Called Hero. But unlike the other two, this film was one which didn't overdo the graphics and the whole thing was tasteful. Nothing appears rushed - unlike Hero. The backgrounds were complementary to the acting and not at all overpowering the scenes.

The story also involves plenty of characters and the intermingling of so many individuals does make the film intriguing. It was possibly on the verge of 'too many cooks', but generally each character had its part in the story. But some of the roles appear to be 'extended cameos' in my opinion, and I somehow am left to slightly question the necessity of this.

Ekin Cheng and Louis Koo play very central roles in the film, but I couldn't say this film showed their best performances. Cecilia Cheung appears to at least have matured in her acting, but it is still quite raw. Kelly Lin was the new revelation for me. Despite her very short role, I have apologise and admit to ogling!

Overall, I have to say, did enjoy this film as much as I enjoyed the 'original'. Given that both movies are made by the legendary Tsui Hark, the two films together are part of a chronicle showing how film making in Hong Kong has changed over two decades. And one beauty of that is the fact that you can't really compare the two films at all, as much as apples are apples and pears are pears.

Ultimately, both are thoroughly enjoyable films in their own right. And I'm going back to reminisce by watching the original again.

Two to watch, but not compare.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and 2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.