Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: There was no characterization in this movie and really shows how much this talentless hack who directed this needs to learn his craft. All his characters in this movie were so unlikable and I could care less. The best point in this movie was the end credits and the hour long shower after this cause I felt so damn dirty that I wasted money on this stinking load. Hey genius....triads and yakuza are from two different places learn something about Asian culture. The dog scene in this felt so tacked on and useless. This DVD does prove useful I do love my new coaster.

So kids don't waste your cash on this crap buy Hostel instead.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines. Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.

One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand. Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed. They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t. As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off. One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus. The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.

Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse. A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale. The acting is understandably not award worthy. Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H. Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.

First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.

Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).

The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more!

In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word "superfluous" covers it all.