Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This has got to be a unique twists of two genres of ever seen. The giant monster movie genre with the living mummy movie genre. This unique blend makes for a unique and compelling story. The casts is outstanding, including TOM BOSLEY who as far as I know never has been in a horror movie before, ever. The effects are impressive and the idea of a giant mummy filled with smaller mummies is a cool one. My one complaint, I just wish we saw more of the giant mummy, but other then that I think they did a great job. The dialog, the characters and the story was perfect. The acting was wonderful. This has got to be the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. You heard me, the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. I give THE FALLEN ONES 9 OUT OF 10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of cliches throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.

I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.

The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).

The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.

Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."

Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."

This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera.

But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.

This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination."
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those

Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.

Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.

So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.

This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.

What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.