Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.

The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?

Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, "War of the Worlds". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900 using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.

IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as "spoilers". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.

This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic "feel". Some of effects are really awkward such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.

This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.

The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms "the rout of Mankind". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up "a prolonged and cheerful hooting". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).

This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother ("Henderson") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.

This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds and not some wholly distorted version of it see this film!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Overall I was rather impressed with the pilot. The initial first fifteen minutes were worrying, as it did feel the creators were trying to create a science fiction version of The O.C but this fear is rectified when a terrorist incident occurs and from here the show steps into themes and situations that I very rarely see television tackle.

BSG dealt with themes such as monotheism, existentialism, reality, death and terrorism but they were primarily subtext, there for the viewer to contemplate on or ignore if they so choose. Here on the other hand these subjects are the focus of the show and I personally found myself evoking such works as Ghost In The Shell and The Matrix as reference points while watching and being surprised by how well the themes were being discussed. I think if you are a fan of the two I just mentioned or other films/television shows, which deal with the subjects I referenced, I think you will find at least something here.

In terms of a starting point to explain how the situation we know in BSG came about I believe they handled it in a very interesting way, I especially liked how they explained where the Cylon's belief in one God came from and the creation of Caprica had just enough advanced and contemporary technology thrown in to make it appear in the future but not completely alien to us as viewers.

The only real weak points I noticed were the relationship between the Greystone parents and the actress who plays 'Lacy Rand'. While I like Eric Stoltz and Paula Malcomson individually, together their scenes seemed to lack chemistry, at this point it could simply be down to developing their characters, but this is something I think needs work. I also found Magda Apanowicz to be unconvincing in her role. This again could be down to experience and time needed to develop, but throughout the episode her acting appeared forced and not completely confident.

Based on the pilot I greatly look forward to seeing where 'Caprica' goes in the future and hopefully it will touch the greatness that BSG once did.