An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The Good:

Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.

The Bad:

Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?

The Ugly:

Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.

Overall:

Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If you were born around the time this movie was finished, and had a liberal/open minded household that I had, I'm sure during the early 80's you'd be first introduced to walking in on your parents watching dirty movies or extreme dirty movies. You know, not 100% pornographic but rather an alchemical mixture of actual drama and pornography, or that you'd sneak into their collection and pop in the plastic rectangle representation of such a film in a big dookie machine called a VHS. You had to be very quiet and ninja like but still having minor heart failure when huge pop noises were made when pressing the tablet-like buttons out of fear of being discovered. Whatever the case, such films were sent into the back of your mind, waiting and waiting to be reunited with such visual "art". Needless to say, this movie fits into the aforementioned description to a "T". Many people will comment on the extreme sexual nature of the film but perhaps due to me being desensitized, I am more disturbed by the subtleties. Was the creator speaking to us on deeper levels of human carnality and or what could be considered a true abomination, interracial relations, bed frame masturbation, voyeurism, or could it be desperation for social status to the point of murder, pedophilia/homosexuality, or the repressed sexual nature of social elitist females in 18th century France? Who can say, but despite Mr. Borowcyzk's taste for vivid, raw sexuality being the "norm" for his works, I'd say that indeed this movie does speak to the viewer on a deeper level concerning bestial carnality. Once I have learned this, the story became much more interesting beyond the giddiness of shock value and there fore, it is well worth checking out.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.

- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.

- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.

- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.

- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...

Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.

If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.