Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. "Don't Spill it Man !", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Pointless boring film with charismatic Mercurio completely wasted. Released for a minute on a Thursday in maybe one local cinema and avoided by the entire population of Sydney except me and four others BACK OF BEYOND is a project seemingly created by a producer looking for a fee. Local actors like John Polson and Terry Serio deserve better (well Polson has morphed into a Director of lame thrillers like SWIMFAN and HIDE AND SEEK) and Terry Serio seems never to get a guernsey apart from thug roles. But Paul Mercurio should have become one of Australia's greatest exports on screen. Roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.

This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.

No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.

While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.

Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Priyadarshan's HERA PHERI was a nice situational comedy This film however actually lacks a story but is quite funny but illogical

In fact they is no proper story yet it somehow manages a nice flow though it isn't anything great

The first half has 2 funny scenes like the one where Akshay and John invite Neha for a lunch and another when Paresh enters

The first half gets boring slowly but the second half is funnier though they is no script

The jokes are funny though one does wonder how they never hear each person's voices from inside the rooms?

The climax confusion is treated like a stage play but it's quite funny But the film ends abruptly

Direction is okay Music is good

Akshay Kumar excels in his part which is now become his second skin, but this is his film completely and he overshadows everyone else

John stumbles throughout and fails in comedy Paresh Rawal is hilarious Rajpal is okay The girls are loud at times and awkward too Nargis, Daisy and Neetu(only Neetu is seen now) are good in parts but shriek too often Manoj Joshi is okay
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.

Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.

The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.

"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess.

The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret.

Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.