Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.

There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!

A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is quite an amazing film to watch. Using digital technology, the director, Rohmer, has literally encrusted his living actors into painted backdrops. Most of the time this works brilliantly, especially at the start where the film is like a pop up story book come to life. It is less successful in a few scenes, where it limits camera angles (they had not painted the side of some of the buildings for example) but it is a very interesting way to film a historical film which is as much about our own misconceptions and limited views of history as History itself. It is narrated using the memoirs of the Duc d'Orleans' ex- mistress, Grace Elliott. So, an event usually claimed as one of their own by Marxist historians, especially in France, is here told from the point of view of a female aristocratic foreigner. Inevitably a different point of view emerges -there can be no objective representation. The use of the memoirs device does give the film a rather episodic quality. Personally, I found the story line around the King's death the most interesting. A staunch Royalist she is shocked when the Duc votes for the King's death (a basic knowledge of the French Revolution is probably helpful to follow the dialogue between Grace and the Duc here. He was Louis's cousin and had himself elected to the Assembly, where he promptly changed his name to Philip Equality). The filming of Louis's death is masterly. Grace and her maidservant are in Meudon, out of Paris, watching from a hill with a telescope. We do not see the execution, we only hear the maid's commentary, like Grace. The most dramatic event of the Revolution happens off screen. Grace cannot bear to watch her king be killed. Her view is that of an aristocrat. Any justification of Louis's death is literally beyond her vision. This is powerful, keenly intelligent film making. The love story between the duc and Grace is insinuated, never told, and is powerfully moving (tho the Duc does seem a bit of a pompous fool at times; what does she see in him? No accounting for taste). The undercurrents of madness (simply existing being enough to be a suspect) that sweep individuals along in a time such as the Revolution are illustrated as Grace's life is turned upside down, her house is searched daily, yet she still orders her servants to cook her food and is incapable of dressing herself! If you have any interest at all in a subtle, well told film, making clever use of new technology to tell an old tale, or the representation of a pivotal moment in Europe's history narrated by an aristocratic foreign woman, its ultimate outsider, then this is well worth your time. It is a little slow in places but your patience is amply rewarded.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.

Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.

While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.

What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.

If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).

9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
*** May contain spoilers. ***

If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.

As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as "near sleep."

Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.

And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.

Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not.