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

A: Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.

Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring.

Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.

One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.

A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime.

And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The charm of Otto Preminger's grandiose, visionary film noir is that it has ambiguous intentions, betraying the gloomy essence of the central character, who is still vexed by living in the shadow of his criminal father. Dana Andrews' driven, vindictive cop is shown as an outsider, irrational and destructive, who maybe can change because he might've found a good woman to look after him. The troubled man reclaims himself with his own tangled impression of rectitude. The distressing mood permanently circuited into the latter half of the story by screenwriter Ben Hecht reverberates in Andrews' tense performance as Preminger saturates the film in a relevantly prosaic substance of style. We don't just see and hear the city at night; we feel it because Preminger lets us see and hear even the most peripheral and distant factors of it.

Dana Andrews furnishes a complex character unfolded through his streaks of violence and the hatred that always infests him. As the plot develops, he is secretly entangled in situational snares, yet he is renewed by the outward acts that can be seen in the vintage noir protagonist's visceral facial expressions before he executes them.

This reflection of a specific phase in the development of the genre is an engrossing, feral and shady film noir that is set in the double-dealing climate of the underworld, where the hero is so estranged that he is always swelling with rage, and even though he loses his rational resistance, occupational principle, and ethical limits, he's still a good cop. Preminger just winks at telling a social-conscience drama about a corrupted community within the sprawling cityscape, rather keeping the thriller riding on Andrews' shoulders as an existential journey of personal ramifications about a man with an Oedipal fixation who is becoming disconnected though with the ever-shrinking influences of the law on his side and an undying perception of right and wrong.

The production companies in the early 1950s pussed out on the social-problem picture, and rather made "low-budget, low-risk thrillers" such as this, apparently in an attempt to evade the conniptions of conservative critics and social busybodies. But there is an expressionistic matter-of-factness to Preminger's inimitable approach. He injects each scene with a sense of everyday drama as a backdrop for the plot. Each supporting character must pull their own weight by doing something interesting, but none of them are cartoons or depressing comic reliefs. To him, every character thinks they're the star, as per the straight-from-the-shoulder self-assertion of Karl Malden as a missionary police inspector and a veteran waitress at a lunch counter. It is those who are the stars---Andrews and Gene Tierney, both anguished by their futile attempts to subdue their emotional intensity---who don't want to be.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I just want to start by saying this is the first review of a film I have done on the net. I felt the need to warn people about this film because it truly is one of the worst films I have ever seen. After reading interviews with the director he says he respects constructive criticism and so i will try to avoid bashing the film just for the sake of it and offer my opinions as to why i found it to be so catastrophically terrible.

1. The actors. I know the budget may not have allowed for great thespians but with Nicholson working in the industry for over ten years surely he knew some actors who were at least average.

2. The incredibly lame make up and special effects. Once again budget obviously interfered with what was originally intended but after working in make up for so many years there is really no excuse.

3. The obvious similarities to Hostel. Whilst not being exactly a rip off it sure does try to cash in on the former films success. Only problem is Roth knew where he was going and exactly how to get there...

4. The music. Not at all creepy or haunting not even sickening just plain annoying.

5. The script in general. All dialogue was forced and terrible! Also the sub plots about the theatre and the guy who comes in to save them were weak as and almost like an afterthought.

6. The editing. WTF. How jarring, and not in a good way. nuf said.

Seriously I would like to hear the director's thoughts on my post (he no doubt frequents his pages on IMDb.) cause buddy... what were you thinking. Surely at some point during either the shooting or editing you realised what a turkey yolu had on your hands... Sorry I don't want to be harsh but you must have more talent than this i hope your next feature that gutterballs movie or wahtever is better, hopefully practice makes progress.

But in the mean time avoid this like the plague. I want my 81 mins back with interest. (At least I didn't pay to watch it.)
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Once in a while, a movie will sweep along that stuns you, draws you in, awes you, and, in the end, leaves you with a renewed belief in the human race from the artistry form. This is not it. This is an action movie that lacks convincing action. It stinks. Rent something else.