Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have to say as being a fan of the man who created Halloween/The Fog/Christine/The Thing - probably his best films.

Then you got this POS. I can't logically think he put any effort at all into this like he did with Cigarette Burns. At least his son made a decent soundtrack.

You have to look at this from the standpoint that it didn't seem like a movie. It looked as if someone else directed it for one thing. I won't believe Carpenter put any effort into this at all.

I was just listening to his old school H2/H3/The Fog soundtrack and it was awesome, especially for the times.

He was using a style that no one had and it worked so well for his films.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Who was George C. Scott? George C. Scott was a renowned actor. Practically any movie that he's been in is the better off for it. Now ol' George had absolutely NOTHING to do with this movie..., but he once said something that describes said movie to a T.

I don't recall his exact words, but he basically said that Great Writing can Save Bad Acting, But Great Acting CanNOT save Bad Writing. Never has this little observation been truer than in "The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy: For Love or Mummy".

The casting of the two leads was absolutely perfect. Bronson Pinchot (Laurel) and Gailard Sartain (Hardy) not only look the parts, but they do an exceptionally good job at mimicking the real deal (mannerisms and all). This movie should stand as a lasting testament to their talents. That said, this movie falls flat on its face when it comes to (you guessed it) WRITING.

Aside from the opening dialogue between Pinchot and Sartain (which was very "in character") and a brief gag involving a taxi, this movie is an absolute chore to sit through.

PROBLEM # 1: Too much time and effort went into the plot.

I don't want to know why the mummy wants to kidnap the pretty British lady. What I WANT is to see Stan and Ollie (or at least, their stand-ins). Way too much screen time was devoted to explaining the plot or to the not-very-funny secondary characters that said plot revolved around.

However, even if this movie had been all jokes, that would still leave us with...

...PROBLEM # 2: Most of the jokes are what I would call "watered-down" slapstick.

What do I mean by "watered down"?

In slapstick, a character gets hurt in an exaggerated way for comedic effect (ala Looney Tunes, 3 Stooges...,or how about Laurel & Hardy?).

In "watered-down" slapstick (as I define it), a character gets mildly hurt or inconvenienced, and the filmmakers play that up for comedic effect.

Maybe an illustration would help:

In Looney Tunes, Daffy Duck gets shot by Elmer Fudd. His bill falls off and he puts it back on. That is classic slapstick.

In this "gem", Ollie accidentally bumps into some people. They turn around, tell him to be careful, and continue on their merry way. That's not slapstick. That's not even funny. That's just...boring...and this movie is full of these kinds of jokes. It's as though they're this movie's bread and butter. The writers and directors just take these dull moments and act like they're supposed to be funny. Granted, the example I just gave is the most extreme case, but I can only cut it so much slack.

Long story short: The film just doesn't work because the script fails to capitalize on Pinchot's and Sartain's abilities to impersonate Stan and Ollie. Instead, the script capitalizes on plot exposition and lame jokes. Watching this movie is basically watching two excellent impersonators who were given no real material to work with.

Not a good movie, but an incredible sleeping aid.

I say give this one a miss and stick with the real deal (just so long as you steer clear of "Atoll K" and "Be Big").
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Legendary director Sidney Lumet gives us one of his finest films in his historic career in this very tense, and ultimately shocking story about a family that includes dysfunctional as one of the children. With an A-list cast headed by Philip Seymour Hoffman (an Oscar-worthy performance here), Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney, Lumet has captured not just elements of botched crime stories such as Reservoir Dogs, but also family stories such as Ordinary People.

Many viewers might be confused and feel underwhelmed at the construction of the plot Lumet has gone with here. Instead of showing it in a linear manner, he has gone the Tarantino route and shows the central scene of a robbery gone wrong from different points of view all out of order. I personally found this to be very satisfying and left me constantly guessing what was going to happen next. The script is very strong with some excellent scenes between husband and wife Hoffman and Tomei, as well as between father and son Finney and Hoffman. All the actors are totally engaging to watch and Lumet is obviously having fun in directing a style he usually doesn't delve in. Plenty of action and suspense to hold the audience for the two hour running time, this is a rare movie that doesn't disappoint for one moment.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This film Evil Breed: The legend of samhain contains very little thought or effort. It is ridiculed with specs of ultra fast "slasher" style death and plain disgusting acts of death. The acting was rated a D as the actors show very little ability, and the stupidity of them in the film is too questionable. The way they portrayed what people their ages act like was incredibly different. The odd split of porn is fit in thought it really doesn't offer much, and any area that is respectable but is quite quickly run down with absolute gut wrenching death. Example is the poor fellow whom is disemboweled from his anus, and the scene lasts for about 5 minutes. It is terribly obvious of how little of a fight the kids put up. This film is a good choice for someone who likes to watch some awful deaths and practically torture.