Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is the first Jean Renoir Silent film I have watched and perhaps rightly so since it is generally regarded to be his best, besides being also his first major work. Overall, it is indeed a very assured and technically accomplished film which belies the fact that it was only Renoir's sophomore effort. For fans of the director, it is full of interesting hints at future Renoir movies especially THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1946) and THE GOLDEN COACH (1952) in its depiction of a lower class femme fatale madly desired by various aristocrats who disgrace themselves for her but also THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) showing as it does in one sequence how the rowdy servants behave when their masters' backs are turned away from them and FRENCH CANCAN (1955) Nana is seen having a go at the scandalous dance at one point. Personally, I would say that the film makes for a respectable companion piece to G.W. Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX (1928), Josef von Sternberg's THE BLUE ANGEL (1930) and Max Ophuls' LOLA MONTES (1955) in its vivid recreation of the sordid life of a courtesan.

Having said all that, the film was a resounding critical and commercial failure at the time of its release a "mad undertaking" as Renoir himself later referred to it in his memoirs which, not only personally cost him a fortune (he eventually eased the resulting financial burden by selling off some of his late father's paintings), but almost made him give up the cinema for good! Stylistically, NANA is quite different from Renoir's sound work and owes a particular debt to Erich von Stroheim's FOOLISH WIVES (1922), a film Renoir greatly admired and, on a personal note, one which I really ought to revisit presto (having owned the Kino DVD of it and the other von Stroheims for 4 years now). Anyway, NANA is certainly not without its flaws: a deliberate pace makes itself felt during the overly generous 130 minute running time with some sequences (the horse race around the mid-point in particular) going on too long.

The overly mannered acting style on display is also hard to take at times particularly that of Catherine Hessling's Nana and Raymond Guerin-Catelain's Georges Hugon (one of her various suitors)although, technically, they are being their characters i.e. a bad actress (who takes to the courtesan lifestyle when she is booed off the stage) and an immature weakling, respectively. However, like Anna Magnani in THE GOLDEN COACH, Hessling (Renoir's wife at the time, by the way) is just not attractive enough to be very convincing as "the epitome of elegance" (as another admirer describes her at one stage) who is able to enslave every man she meets. Other notables in the cast are "Dr. Caligari" himself, Werner Krauss (as Nana's most fervent devotee, Count Muffat), Jean Angelo (as an initially skeptical but eventually tragic suitor of Nana's) and future distinguished film director Claude Autant-Lara (billed as Claude Moore and also serving as art director here) as Muffat's close friend but who is secretly enamored with the latter's neglected wife!

The print I watched via Lionsgate's "Jean Renoir 3-Disc Collector's Edition" is, for the most part, a lovingly restored and beautifully-tinted one which had been previously available only on French DVD. Being based on a classic of French literature (by Emile Zola, no less), it cannot help but having been brought to the screen several times and the two most notable film versions are Dorothy Arzner's in 1934 (with Anna Sten and Lionel Atwill and which I own on VHS) and Christian-Jaque's in 1955 (with Martine Carol and Charles Boyer, which I am not familiar with).

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.

If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.

The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?

THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliche left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.

After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...

THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...

THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?

I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
There is STAR TREK canon -- lots of it. From canon we know the history of the future. Advances in technology, events, places, first contacts with new beings, names, dates, etc.

ENTERPRISE pretty much disregards much of ST canon. An unfortunate fact for long time serious fans. As one, I assumed that the producers would at least take a look at the first few episodes of TOS and retro back from there -- but no.

The phase pistols, like much of the technology, look much more modern than found in TOS. An old style Starfleet laser gun, a slow gold speckle transporter effect -- that's what I expected to see. Also, I did not expect to hear pure beep-based sound effects similar to TNG but far apart from TOS sound effects.

In the earliest view of TOS (the original pilot: THE CAGE), we see a Starfleet with a more formal military aspect -- a bit of old earth Navy. With ENTERPRISE, we see a shocking disregard for rank. There is more military code in the cartoon STAR BLAZERS than in ENTERPRISE.

It is fine that Captain Archer is unsure about the needs of the Universe (quite unlike Kirk who never lacked confidence in his application of human justice), but inside ENTERPRISE everyone seems like an equal. Unprofessional, unsure, more distant from the feel of formal military service than found in any ST series -- and that says a lot!

The casual country music opening theme song heralds the journeys of a family rather than the adventures of an important large military vessel.

ENTERPRISE looks to show us a mostly fun, warm-fuzzy exploration of human relationships rather than take us on a historic, bold, gritty, high-rick exploration of space.

I would have selected Adrian Paul to play the Captain and an older human to be the doctor. Still, I liked the actors for the most part. Linda Park, an outstanding ballroom dancer from Boston College, is sure to develop nicely. The characters making up the crew seem to be thoughtfully created.

ENTERPRISE begins its run stronger than did the past three STAR TREK series. Let's hope for a good future!