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

Answer: If you are looking for a definitive biography of the life of boxer James Corbett, then this is probably not the film for you. The famed boxer receives a 1940s "Hollywood-ization" of his life--making the story far more entertaining and engaging than real life. However, because the performances were so good (particularly by Errol Flynn) and the script so likable, the film's embellishments can be forgiven.

Errol Flynn plays Gay Nineties-era boxer James "Gentleman Jim" Corbett--a man who became world boxing champ in 1892. The film goes from his rather humble beginnings and follows his through his career through him winning the title match against John L. Sullivan. However, while it could have focused mostly on the matches, most are rather brief in the film (except for the final title match) and the emphasis is on Corbett's brash personality as well as his relationship with the lady played by Alexis Smith. Throughout the film, there is excellent supporting work done by a cast of wonderful supporting actors (such as the perennial supporting actor in Flynn films, Alan Hale) and the writing really helped bring these people alive.

What is particularly nice about the film is seeing the athleticism of Flynn as a boxer. While a few of the shots are of doubles, almost all the boxing scenes are of Flynn and he did a convincing job as a pugilist. This was a nice departure for Flynn, who generally played "pretty boy" roles or swashbucklers and this shows just how tough a character he was. To find out more about this, try reading a biography of him--he was quite the rough and tumble character before coming to Hollywood.

Now as for the REAL James Corbett, read on if you aren't afraid of finding out how the movie isn't accurate. First, Corbett was NOT a poor guy coming from a poor family, but was college educated and bright. Second, while he DID get Alexis Smith at the end of the film, they also divorced a few years later. Third, the wonderfully touching final scene of the film between Sullivan and Corbett was probably the best part of the film, Sullivan was a jerk and this never could have happened--in reality, Sullivan was more the egomaniac and Corbett was not the fat-headed guy they portrayed in the film--though it made for a lovely film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from ****
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I first saw BLOOD OF THE SAMURAI at its premiere during the Hawaii International Film Festival. WOW! Blood just blew us away with its sheer verve, gore, vitality, gore, excitement, gore, utter campiness, and even more gore, and all in SUCH GREAT FUN! Especially for those of you who enjoy all those Japanese chambara samurai and ninja films, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO SEE BLOOD!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It was meant to be a parody on the LOTR-Trilogy. But this was one of the most awful movies I've ever seen. Bad acting, bad screenplay, bad everything. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I don't doubt any second that there are people who'll like this sense of "humor", but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers. I'm working in a movie theater and in DVD Shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas: At the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then, when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good, the movie dropped very fast. In DVD sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. In the last ten years, the two worst movies I've seen are The Ring Thing and Torque. I can't decide which one was worse, but I'm happy that there a so many good movies so I don't have to think too much on this question.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It is difficult to find any positives in this movie. Seems as though the producer needed to make a buck without much effort & hence we are treated to a full showing of Galaxy which is the lamest excuse for a movie in history. The police girls looked extremely sexy in their little uniforms. More action shots of the two cops & a lot less of Galaxy would have been the way to go. Of course that would add to the budget so they decided to fill the space with that wretched rerun. Ms Albright does excellent looking sexy & her acting is first rate. Ms Stabs whom I had heard of but not seen on screen before also looked very desirable but seems to lack basic acting talent. Apart from Ms Albright this is real garbage.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from Beverly Hills 90210 were thrown into a Thai jail?If so, this is your movie. This is Midnight Express for the MTV crowd. That would be ok, but the story was poorly executed. Contrived plot twists, poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. This slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. Potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line-the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (This moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). Later the same hotel employee is somehow found-and Bangkok is a big city, mind you, Ive been there- and testifies against the girls, as if a couple of free Mai Tais warrant 40 years in prison. C'mon. Rent Another Day in Paradise instead.