Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

***

I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!

Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.

The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.

I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases.

But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.

The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others.

And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.

The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts.

So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.

Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?

Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% of.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I like this film for several reasons. I have a soft spot for films about intricately plotted criminal plots like TOPKAPI. I also enjoy films (like TOPKAPI and BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET) that spoof the the genre. One of the best ones is DISORGANIZED CRIME.

Corbin Bernsen has met four cons over the years, and he decides they can all be useful in a bank robbery he is planning in a small Montana town. But he hasn't given any details on the crime to the fellows, nor do they really know each other at all. Shortly after he sends for them Bernsen is arrested by two New Jersey policemen (Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck) whom he escaped from before and have a warrant to bring him back. While he is in their custody the four cons (Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Philips, Ruben Blades, and Will Russ) show up without a clue about why they are there except that Bernsen was planning something.

The first twenty minutes of the film deal with the four cons slowly getting used to each other, with Gwynne and Philips managing to push away their own suspicions to figure out they have to trust each other. At the same time we see Bernsen patiently waiting for the right moment to escape from O'Neill and Roebuck again - not too difficult as they are not the brightest bulbs who ever existed. The result are two sets of plots that will keep juxtaposing against each other throughout the film: the four cons trying to figure out what Bernsen's scheme was, and how to put it into operation, and Bernsen trying to maintain his own freedom from his pursuers and regain his cabin (and hopefully find his gang there for him to take command of). There is also a third, smaller, plot involving the growing annoyance and anger of local Sheriff Hoyt Axton against the idiots from New Jersey who keep getting into his hair.

There are many delightful moments in the film, such as Axton, egged on by O'Neil and Roebuck, into surrounding a house in the town that Bernsen is supposed to be hiding inside of, and yelling (through a megaphone, "Come out, we have you surrounded!!", only to have the scene switch to a huge, Montana plain that Bernsen is struggling and stumbling through miles from where the police think he is at that moment. There are moments of misadventures by our four cons, who fortunately put the oldest (Gwynne) into leadership position. This does not always guarantee anything. At one point their car won't start, and they have to thumb a ride by truck. Unfortunately it is a truck carrying manure.

The conclusion with the gang successfully carrying out the robbery, including disabling all the police cars at the critical time (Philips specialty is cars) is also a gem of timing, suspense, and comic results. The film is very entertaining, and certainly worth watching.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: "Smokey And The Bandit" wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but then nobody wanted it to be. It was lowdown slapstick, but it did have brains. It had a very smart script with definable characters and a fun wrap-up. People came out of the theater smiling. "Hooper" provides none of this. There is no reason to smile. If it's supposed to be a tribute to the Hollywood Stuntman, it makes them look awfully lazy by providing nothing but badly-choreographed fight scenes and one of the most unconvincing car-jumps I've ever seen. It all looks phony, badly-filmed almost on purpose. Poor Sally Field (as the girlfriend who wrings her hands on the sidelines) is given her weakest role, with not a single funny or smart line ("If you do that jump, I won't be here when you get back"). Burt Reynolds keeps looking at the camera and winking, but the joke is on any audience who sits through "Hooper". * from ****
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."

Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.

What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.

I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.