Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The thing about calling "House of the Dead" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called "a movie."

House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I am currently doing film studies at A.S level and "this is not a love song" is a film we watched and in my opinion it is a film with a very simple storyline but a complex back-story. If you scratch the surface you will find a thriller-chase film of two men running through the countryside from farmers, after committing a murder:-"sounds quite exiting".

However you need to dig deeper to uncover the true feeling of the true genre. As it is suggested, it is a love story between two homosexual lovers, filled with trust, deceit and betrayal. We are not told about this "love" directly through the film but the events that happen through out, for example the way Heaton acts towards Spike almost screams this untouched love affair in our faces.

Overall this film is a good example of why British films should not be dismissed as "rubbish" just because they are done on a low budget.

A Good film with an intricate story line, however it is definitely an acquired taste and is possibly not suitable for the average fan of Hollywood blockbusters.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Many people like this movie and many more love it, but it seems that it is all for the wrong reasons. Scarface should be liked and loved but not in the way it has been or is.

Many people say the acting was over-the-top, but who better to do an over-the-top character than Al Pacino. To say that Pacino went over-the-top in here would be an understatement. Yet he does it so well, he just brings the inner devil out of you so well. His character Tony Montana was not such a great guy to begin with but his thirst for power just bring his sickness of greed to another level; an inhumane level. Sure at times Pacino seems to be a bit cartoonish and surreal but that does not at all to me seem to be a liability at all. The supporting cast served its job very well. Michelle Pfeiffer was not really at her best but she certainly fit the role she played. On the other hand Steven Bauer was at his best, still he is Steven Bauer. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was good and like Michelle Pfeiffer fit her role very well. Robert Loggia I have always enjoyed watching in just seeing him yell. Other than Pacino they were not really any standout or memorable performances. Everybody just seemed to fit their roles by being there. They did not fit in perfectly but were convincing enough.

Brian De Palma did a very good job directing this movie. Whenever an actor is able to become larger than life with his performance some credit should be given to the director and I will certainly give De Palma that. Brian De Palma, though not given the respect, is a very versatile director by my count. He knows how to direct movies according to their genres, but that at times has not turned out well. In here it does, this is by all counts a gangster movie but few are much better than this one because of De Palma.

The writing was great it was just pure Oliver Stone. When I saw the credits at the end of this movie and saw that Oliver Stone had written this I was not the least bit surprised. That is a testament to him though. I have always though of him as a great writer and to me he proves this once again with Scarface. Nobody knows how to write a surreal reality for a movie than Oliver Stone.

The music was good but not that great. It is certainly not my favorite from Giorgio Moroder. The music was a little bit too 80s-ish for me but it didn't annoy me. The cinematography was good, not amazing but really who cares with a movie like this.

This has probably been one of the most influential movies in the past 25 years but as mentioned before it is for the wrong reasons. People should realize that the character of Tony Montana is no hero, he is a monster. He is not inspiring in anyway. He is greedy, bloodthirsty, uneducated and self consumed. Yet he is a role model to many people because he is in some way or another a rebel but probably most of all because he is a deluded gangster. A vigilante would be like Mother Tereasa next to Scarface.

The good thing about this movie though is that it shows that the Tony Montanas' are not the real problem. If we or the people of authority would want to shut people like him down we could do it but we don't. In a freaky twisted way he is a necessity of our society. He is somebody you could blame everything on and fell better about yourself doing it. The Tony Montanas' of this world are the scapegoats of our society. This in no way excuses people like him. Instead it is more of a reminder that we shouldn't excuse or allow ourselves to do bad things just because we measure up or think we measure up compared better to a gangster or drug dealer. I love this movie because it is more than a corruption movie, it is a movie that in a strange way makes you self reflect.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is possibly the worst version of the play I have seen - several times on stage apart from the movie.

A very nice idea for the set up - the American South can give a credible backdrop for the extreme reaction round Hero's supposed misdemeanour.

But the execution! Widdoes is a very mannered Beatrice giving a particularly poor performance. Waterston, a fine actor, is not much better as Benedict.

The poorest performance is in the role of Don John - it makes Keanu Reeves look good. Perhaps the desire to make it a caricature along the lines of the villain who ties the maiden to the train track fits with the keystone kops capers of Dogberry and his men - but the acting makes you want to cringe.

Successful set-ups include the scene where they fool Benedict into believing Beatrice loves him - were the acting competent it would be superb. But the use of the river and the visual humour of Benedict moving closer is well produced.

Overall I had to force myself to keep watching but it certainly didn't keep my attention.

Very disappointing.

With respect to latter comments above I am nearly 40. I've been watching stage and screen productions of Shakespeare for over 2 decades. Might I suggest when trying to defend your friends you speak to the piece rather than attack other reviewers when you are so inadequately armed in terms of fact. I can assume though, from your distaste regarding youth, that you are of sufficient age where the mannered acting of bygone days is more to your taste.

My personal favourite pairing was Rylance and McTeer on the London stage. Unlike Widdoes, McTeer, a skilled and charismatic performer, can act.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is, simply put, the worst movie ever made, far lamer than even the inept "Plan 9 from Outer Space."

The Lampoon film is told in three segments, each one supposedly a spoof of a conventional movie genre, but each one landing at our feet with a sickening thud. There is no rhyme or reason for these execrable vignettes, and no discernible story lines.

Another reviewer on this site has written that the only good points about the film are the nude scenes. True, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice it is too. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.

Probably the worst of the three segments is the last one, featuring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark. Here, we see Benson as a young, eager-beaver policeman being paired with a cynical oldtimer played by Widmark. And for just a moment, those of us who are still watching this odious cinematic exercise are heartened by the thought that we are about to see a redemptive tale about how the young, idealistic cop brings about a purifying change in the old-timer's approach to police work. But no such luck. As we've said, this film has no redeeming values. It is sickening all the way to the final fade-out -- which, perversely, is stretched out longer than it should last on the screen. Apparently the film makers knew they had a bad thing going, and wanted to make the least of it.