Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film!

And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?

Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!

If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Sasquatch Hunters" actually wasn't as bad as I thought.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling into the woods, Park Rangers Charles Landon, (Kevin O'Connor) Roger Gordon, (Matt Latimore) Brian Stratton (David Zelina) Spencer Combs, (Rick Holland) and his sister Janet, (Stacey Branscombe) escort Dr. Helen Gilbert, (Amy Shelton-White) her boss Dr. Ethan Edwards, (Gary Sturm) and assistant Louise Keaton, (Juliana Dever) to find the site of some reputed bones found in the area. When they make camp, the team discovers a giant burial ground and more strange bones littering the area. When members of the group start to disappear, they start to wander through the woods to safety. It's discovered that a Sasquatch is behind the killings, and the team band together to survive.

The Good News: This wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The movie really starts to pick up some steam at around the half-way point, when the creature attacks. That is a masterful series of scenes, as the whole group is subjected to attacks by the creature, and the suspense throughout the entire play-out is extremely high. The wooded area is most appropriately milked during these parts, heightening the tension and wondering when a single person wandering around in the forest will get their comeuppance. Also spread quite liberally through the movie is the effective use of off-screen growls and roars that are truly unworldly. They really do add much to make this part so creepy, as well as the other times the growling shriek is heard. It's quite effective, and works well. It's quite nice that the later part of the film picks up the pace, as it goes out pretty well on a high note of action. One scene especially I feel must point out as being a special scene on first viewing. As a man is running through the forest from the creature, he spots the expedition that has gone on looking for it. Raising his hands to holler to them for help, the second he goes to announce his presence is he attacked from out of nowhere and killed quite hastily. It caught me by surprise and actually gave me a little jump on first viewing.

The Bad News: There was only a couple things to complain about here, and one is a usual complaint. The creature here is mostly rendered by horrible CGI, which made him look totally ridiculous and destroys any credibility it might've had. The air of menace conjured up by the opening of the film is almost shot out the window when the creature appears on screen. It's so distracting that it's a shame a little more work wasn't put into it. I've complained about this one a lot, and is something that really should be done away with, as it doesn't look that realistic and is quite fake. Another big one is the off-screen kills in here. Very often in the film is a person grabbed and then yanked away, and then finding the bloody body afterward. It's quite aggravating when the kills look nice and juicy afterward. Otherwise, I don't really have much of a problem with this one, as everything else that's usually critiqued about this one didn't really bother me, but it is called on for others beyond this stuff.

The Final Verdict: I kinda liked this one, but it's still not the best Sasquatch movie ever. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, and if viewed that way, it's actually quoit enjoyable. Fans of these films should give this one a look, and those that like the Sci-Fi Creature Features might find some nice things in here as well.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and some graphic carcasses
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Nice character development in a pretty cool milieu. Being a male, I'm probably not qualified to totally understand it, but they do a nice job of establishing the restrictive Victorian environment from the start. It isn't as bleak as it really was and the treatment of women was probably even harsher. What makes this go is a wonderful chemistry among the principal characters. Each has their own "thing" that they contend with. Once they come out of the rain and break out of the spider webs, they begin to interact and slowly lose their sense of suspicion. What I enjoyed about this movie is that it didn't go for cheap comedy when it could have. It didn't try to pound a lesson into us. The people who seem utterly without merit are really nicely developed human beings who get to see the light. I did have a little trouble with the Alfred Molina character having such an epiphany so quickly, but, within this world, it needed to happen. Good acting all around with something positive taking place in the lives of some pretty good people.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).

Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.

Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.

Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.

The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliche to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.

So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.

This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.

Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...

Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...