An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I don't have much to add to what has been said before, but it's very much a film of it's time, and the first (and likely only) time that the studio hung the film totally on the Dead End Kids.

The Warner's gave the boys plenty of help, from director Ray Enright and an 'A' budget, to an almost magical cast of supporting actors. At every turn, we get one of those gem performances from real pros. They are too many to list, but it seems like just about everybody on the Warner's lot (Sans the very biggest stars) walk through this picture. (See if you can spot John Ridgely)

The only over the top performance is from the always reliable Eduardo Cianelli as a mob boss with a messianistic complex. He plays this character almost exactly like that of the Thuggie leader in "Gunga Din". He's something to watch! And Marjorie Main is excellent and gets her best role since "Dead End".

My bid for this one is a second feature on a double bill with something like "City for Conquest".

Hooray for Warners!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.

While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.

If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.

As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).

NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!