Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Greetings again from the darkness. 18 directors of 18 seemingly unrelated vignettes about love in the city of lights. A very unusual format that takes a couple of segments to adjust to as a viewer. We are so accustomed to character development over a 2 hour movie, it is a bit disarming for that to occur in an 8 minute segment.

The idea is 18 love/relationship stories in 18 different neighborhoods of this magnificent city. Of course, some stand up better than others and some go for comedy, while others focus on dramatic emotion. Some very known directors are involved, including: The Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, Gus Van Sant and Gurinda Chadha. Many familiar faces make appearances as well: Steve Buscemi, Barbet Schroeder, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ben Gazzara, Gena Rowlands, Gerard Depardieu, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Bob Hoskins.

One of the best segments involves a mime, and then another mime and the nerdy, yet happy young son of the two mimes. Also playing key roles are a red trench coat, cancer, divorce, sexual fantasy, the death of a child and many other topics. Don't miss Alexander Payne (director of "Sideways") as Oscar Wilde.

The diversity of the segments make this interesting to watch, but as a film, it cannot be termed great. Still it is very watchable and a nice change of pace for the frequent movie goer.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: First, let me say that Notorious is an absolutely charming film, very lovingly rendered of its time and subject(s). Gretchen Mol is utterly, painfully convincing, the very soul of the contradictions smoothly reified by Ms. Page herself. Irving and Paula Klaw are richly drawn as the working-class stiffs they were (having met Paula at Movie Star News in 1990 I can say that Lili Taylor's performance is unimpeachable), and Jared Harris as John Willie (Coutts) is an adoringly debauched genius. Anyone with an interest in the recorded history of American attitudes toward sexuality must see this movie, in a theater preferably, where votes made with dollars count more.

Second, I will allow that I am a producer of material similar to that for which the Klaws would become famous, which is no way affects my estimation of Ms. Harron's work as the splendid piece that it is, but does condition my view of Notorious as an act of political resistance of the first order. Ms. Harron has crafted a work of subtle subversion. Along with V for Vendetta, it is a movie about another time for our times.

Few readers of this site will be aware that the government they will see enacted in Notorious (through transcription of the very words uttered in closed Senate committee hearings) is a very close approximation of the one they live under right now. While Ms. Harron expressly disallows that she has a political agenda appended to this film, her faithfulness to the facts, and the respectful and unsensational way in which she renders them, synchronizes Notorious with the present day. The very acts that Notorious portrays in loving and accurate detail are defined as obscene by the Communications Decency Act, recently brought to the Supreme Court as a First Amendment case and turned back there at the behest of the Bush administration. In other words, the delicate and ineffectual bondage depicted in Notorious is indictable today by Federal prosecutors in whatever (hostile) jurisdiction they choose. Of course, there were no hearings in the Senate or elsewhere on this matter when the CDA was passed. Of course you know nothing about it, because you don't want people in Peoria telling you what you can and cannot look at (likewise, people in Peoria probably don't want me telling them what they're allowed to view). Of course Notorious will never be indicted. It's Hollywood. It's lawyered up. Countless Klaws will, however, continue to be steamrolled by a puritanical bureaucracy that has not advanced its aesthetic, moral or biological composition much in 50+ years.

In addition, Notorious posts no 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, which is mandated by the unnoticed "earmark" recently voted into law. If any media contains images of "sadomasochistic restraint" it is required to make available (ex warrant) records of age and circumstance of all performers. Notorious fails in this regard also.

In addition to being a splendid piece of entertainment and an (nearly) accurate historical document, Notorious will be the litmus against which the Bush Justice Department is itself judged with respect to the 14th (Equal Protection) Amendment and on perhaps several other Constitutional grounds. In this regard alone, a debt of gratitude is owed Mary Harron. You'll be grateful in any case, Constitutional or otherwise, if you see this film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: ...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.

If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.

When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".

Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.

Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.

Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?

So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.

Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).

After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.

I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The script for this movie was probably found in a hair-ball recently coughed up by a really old dog. Mostly an amateur film with lame FX. For you Zeta-Jones fanatics: she has the credibility of one Mr. Binks.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.

I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.

It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.

The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.

2.6/10 on the "B" scale.

That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...

the Fiend :.