Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.

Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.

*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.

This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.

I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.

A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.

Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?

Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.

Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it!

Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ®️ after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.

Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.

I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
It's very sly for all of the 60's look to the movie. The humor is quite gentle, but it grew on me much more than I expected. The cast is first-rate and they appear to be having a wonderful time. Ustinov wanders through the film muttering some quite funny things under his breath, and it's all very inconsequential; I'll buy the movie as soon as it comes out on DVD. The plot is that Ustinov as an embezzler released from prison posing as a computer whiz and embezzling money from an American company with an office in London. Maggie Smith is his secretary for a while, and watching her get fired from many different jobs is part of the fun. Bob Newhart is his usual deadpan self, and Karl Malden has fun as the dense and sleazy executive running the London office. The ending is funny and nicely cynical.