Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: "The Longest Day," "To Hell and Back," "Bridge on the River Kwai," (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. "Twelve Angry Men" and "Lifeboat" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking?
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The episodic version of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers plays out at a deathly slow pace, following Johnny Rico leaving his parents, the (not very attractive) girl he lusts for, and joining the mobile infantry. The aliens in the show are nothing like the barbaric bugs from the film, instead being squid-like monsters that shoot lasers out of their mouths.

Throughout watching this version, I was continually amazed at just how fruity they've managed to make the whole thing. The show is concerned mostly with the relationships between the recruits, and the aching, prolonged gazes they give each other through their battle armour visors, with 80s synth pop sometimes arriving *during* the sparse battle sequences which at last turning up in the final few episodes. In terms of construction, it owes a debt to Top Gun, sharing much in terms of pacing and content (and all that implies).
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie is very entertaining and is never ever boring even running at nearly 3 hours. Al Pacino, Michelle Phieffer and the rest of the cast are great in the film and are very believable. The violence was a little extreme in the film but then it showed how vicious the drug trade was at the time of the film. The ending is amazing and is probalby one of the coolest scenes ever. Great movie and you will probably really enjoy it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.

I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.

Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out "Stella!!" in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.

Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.

Grade: B+
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the "Mother Night" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively "easy" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of "Bluebeard" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan" would probably have been the equivalent of "R" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at "Jailbird", "Galapagos" and "Hocus Pocus".

The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.

Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.

Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.

It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.

But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.

As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head.