Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.

It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.

Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in "Halloween" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.

Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming "re-imagining".

It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?

It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.

It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.

9/10
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiance and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiance and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.

PROS:

-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes!

-Beautiful score

-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today

-Fantastic and fast editing job

CONS:

-For mature audiences only

-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Saw it as many times as I could before it left the scene. A delightful and entertaining film with some of my very favorite stars. Only wish I could find it again! Would certainly buy/view it if I could. Please, somebody, bring it back. Fred MacMurray was perfect in his role as a patriot during World War II, and his leading ladies, Joan Leslie, and especially June Haver were beautiful and charming. It was a musical, but also romantic, funny, and clever. This was my favorite movie starring June Haver, although I always liked her. Her dazzling smile lit up the screen, and her beauty and talent were an asset to any film. The supporting cast lent credit to their individual roles. A well-balanced and light-hearted film; only wish we had more like it!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.

Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.

Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.

If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.