Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.

Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, "What happened here" and she replies "Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday"!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.

There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The film was written 10 years back and a different director was planning it with SRK and Aamir in lead roles

The film finally was made now with Vipul Shah directing it And Ajay and Salman starring together after a decade HUM DIL DE CHUKE SANAM(1999)

The movie however falls short due to it's 90's handling and worst it's loopholes

The film tries to pack in too many commercial ingredients and we also hav the love triangle

Everything is predictable and filmy and too cliched

There are loopholes like how Ajay runs away from London Airport and makes a place for himself with no one? even the way he starts his band is not convincing The second half gets better with the twist in the tale of Ajay destroying Salman but sadly the climax falls short and the film ends on a bad note

Direction by Vipul Shah is ordinary to below average Music is the worst point, most songs are mediocre

Amongst actors Ajay gives his best shot though he isn't convincing as a Rock singer yet he does superb as the negative role Salman however irritates with his punjabi and talking nonsense he only impresses when he gets drugged and thereon Asin is nothing great just a show piece Ranvijay should stick to MTV Om Puri is okay
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is horrible, but you have to see it because of that. I'm not here to discuss the entire film, just the greatest chase scene ever. When Eddie dumbs milk on Tim, he gets chased down the hallway. Eddie puts obstacles in the jocks way with hilarious consequences (like a cymbal nailing a trumpet player; buy the DVD and watch it slow). The best obstacle is a knocked over mop bucket which one jock jumps over but proceeds to slide on the ground out a door. But when he slides he picks up speed thus defying physics (mainly friction); yet what lies behind the door is supreme. The steepest stair case in any school ever, which this jock proceeds to CLEAR in the air. In reality he probably would die of a broken neck. Not only does he defy all concepts of reality, he makes the funniest noise ever made in that situation. Go and buy this one. Trust me this scene is worth your 6 bucks.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I don't have much to add to my summary, this film ranks right up the there with Top Gun as one of the funniest films ever made while not trying to be. I for one don't think it should be taken seriously when watched as it is very enjoyable.

I don't think it brings Christopher Walken's reputation down either as his reputation was on the wane back then anyway. It took Pulp Fiction to wake him from the slumber he had been in. As for Michael Ironside, he has been in some of the great funny while not trying to be serious films. Total Recall, Top Gun. What I think is amazing is the budget this movie had. The scenes and actors and explosions etc. are quite amazing so obviously someone liked it quite a lot and was willing to risk a lot of money. Whoever he or she was I like them because I love this film!

If anyone reads this looking for information on McBain (and I seriously doubt there'll be too many) just know that it is a hilarious movie and should be viewed with a smile on your face!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What's in a name? If the name is Jerry Bruckheimer expect it to be filled with action.

In producer Bruckheimer's latest film, Gone in 60 Seconds, its all about the nomenclature. With character monikers like Kip, Sway and The Sphinx and cars idealized with names like Diane, Sue and the elusive Eleanor, it's only the non-stop action that keeps you from wanting to just play the name game.

Not a deep script by any means, but it is a great vehicle for action as Nicolas Cage as Memphis Raines, along with Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall, comes out of car-thievery retirement to save his brother's life by stealing a list of 50 exotic cars in one night. A remake of the 1974 cult hit, this film may not be destined for the same cult status but it is entertaining.

Surprisingly, it's the action that keeps you watching not the acting. Although loaded with stars, none of them have standout performances, including a very weak performance by one of my favorite up and comers, Giovanni Ribisi. Even Jolie, coming off her recent Oscar win, is just a token love interest with hardly any screen time.

Can a series of beautiful cars and the car chases they become involved in make a great film? I think so. The film is a pleasure to look at and although one particular scene takes you into the realm of unbelieveablity, the action is non-stop and the suspense is compelling. Just be wary of other drivers fighting for a pole position as you leave the theatre.

3 1/2 out of 5
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.

Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.

The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protege Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.

The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.

The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.

The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team.

My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?

The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.