Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Some saying about 'The Play is the Most Important Thing', or something like that, is attributed to that old Bard of Avon, himself, William Shakewspeare. if it wasn't old Will, it may well have been our own, super-veteran film Director, Mr. Raoul Walsh. There are a large number of his films that would support this hypothesis. None are more appropriate than GENTLEMAN JIM(Warner Brothers, 1942).

The Film also racks up another award, being named as Errol Flynn's favourite of his own starring vehicles. It clearly gives on screen evidence that would easily lead viewers sitting in the darkened theatre, or viewing it on their home TV or DVD, to conclude same.

To be sure, the story is a semi-serious Biopic, which takes a portion of factual material and blends it with a liberal dose of the old imagination to bring us a very satisfying, albeit somewhat fictionalized(what Biopic isn't?)occurrences.

The casting is excellent, as it makes good use of the natural athleticism of our lead, Mr. Errol Flynn. Though not a Swashbuckler, a Western or a War Picture, this GENTLEMAN JIM is perhaps the starring role that was the best fit for the rugged Australian.

Errol was a member of the Australian Olympic Boxing Team in either 1928 or 1932. His training and skills in the 'sweet science'are clearly in evidence throughout the film and especially in the "Big Fight" for the World's Heavyweight Boxing Championship with the great John L.Sullivan,Himself.(played in expert fashion by Ward Bond) The cast reads like a duty roster of Warner Brothers' resident supporting players. It features Alan Hale as Jim Corbet's father, a Livery Wagon operator*. His two brothers are Harry and George (Pat Flaherty and James Flavin), the two 'blue collar' men of the family, their occupations being stated as being 'Longshormen'.

The great Jack Carson does his usual masterful serio-comic performance in support as Jim Corbett's friend and fellow bank teller. The rest of those we can both recognize and remember are:John Loder, William Frawley,Madeleine LeBeau, Minor Watson, Rhys Williams,Arthur Shields,Dorothy Vaughn to name but a few.

Director Walsh also used a number of Pro Wrestlers in roles of various Boxers. Hence we have Ed "Strangler" Lewis and an unknown Grappler* are featured as the 2 waterfront pugs in the opening scenes. Others were Sammy Stein, Mike Mazurki(ever hear of him?)and "Wee Willie" Davis. These guys had a powerful,yet unpolished look about them that the old Pier 9 brawlers would have possessed.

We haven't forgotten Leading Lady, Alexis Smith. She is powerful in her characterization of an "independent" woman, yet maintains enough true ability as a comic player in many of the scenes. She displays quite a range in her part as poor little rich girl, Victoria Lodge.

With all these ingredients at hand, the trick is how to mix the elements in proper proportions to give it the 'just right' blend. Well, Director Walsh does so with a reckless abandon. Because he is looking for, above all, a great film. His treatment shows all of the skills he had honed to a fine tuning starting with his days as a player with D.W. Griffith. Mr. Walsh seems to have a special fondness for that period, the 1890's.*** Mr. Walsh's direction moves through the script at a fairly fast clip, breaking up the exposition scenes with a humorous punch-line, "the Corbetts are at it again!" Hence, he is able to maintain a light, even humorous touch to a story which could become too drab and serious.

Furthermore, in an almost unnoticed element, Brother Walsh gives us an authentic look of a San Francisco of the 1890's. And as a further example of his fondness for that period, he creates wide, dynamic images of the historic Prize Fights. There is a vibrant, joyful mood conveyed in those Boxing scenes. As a crowning glory to this great, perhaps underrated film, Director Walsh gave the image a look as if it were an illustration from The Police Gazette, which covered such events in those "Old Days".

But there's just one thing to remember before viewing. If it is for the first time, or if your seeing it once more:

"THE CORBETS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!"

* In my humble opinion as a historian of both Film and Pro Wrestling, it looks like Tor Johnson, who years later was a favourite of Director Ed Wood's.

** A 'Livery' is a somewhat archaic term for a vehicle for hire for local city transportation.

*** It's true. Mr. Raoul Walsh was a Griffith Veteran Player. He was the actor to portray John Wilkes Booth in THE BIRTH OF A NATION(1915).

**** Being born in 1887, Raoul Walsh was old enough to have his own memories of the 1890's and of the Sullivan-Corbett Championship Bout and what it meant to the Sporting Life in the America of those days.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.

I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.

This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Textbook example of an underestimated movie.

Although one can watch this movie over and over again and laugh every single time and still see something new in it, it's still regarded as just another funny picture. And although the movie has inspired many and added it's quotes and images to the pyche of all it's viewers, Moon Over Parador still hasn't received the acclaim it should. Even the brilliant cast with Academy Award winner Richard Dreyfuss and Raul Julia, to mention one, is not able to change this perception.

But after watching Raul Julia as Roberto Strausmann make Richard Dreyfus an offer he can't refuse in a meatlocker by reading him a good review of a part that he once played one can only come to one conclusion: this stuff is timeless! In fifty years we will have the proof.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Godard once said a way to criticize a movie is to just make one, and probably the strongest kind that could be made about Ralph Bakshi's take on Tolkien's magnum opus the Lord of the Rings, has actually been made by Peter Jackson. The recent trilogy, to me, aren't even total masterpieces, but they are given enough room with each book to breath in all the post-modern techniques crossed with classical storytelling to make them very good, sweeping entertainments.

But as one who has not read the books, I end up now looking upon the two versions, live-action (albeit partly animated in its big visual effects way) and animated (albeit partly done with actual live action as the framework) in relation to just the basic story, not even complete faithfulness to the books. And with Bakshi's version, it's almost not fair in a way, as what we do see is really not the complete vision, not what Jackson really had (probably final cut). Robbed of Return of the King's big climactic rush of the story, and with the other two parts becoming rushed, I ended up liking it more for what it did within its limitations, though as such those same limitations make it disappointing.

What's interesting too, after seeing the Jackson films first- which I also slightly regret being that I might've reacted to this differently when I was younger and prior to five years ago- is that the basic elements of the story never get messed up with. Everything that is really needed to tell the Fellowship of the Ring story is actually pretty much intact, and if anything what was probably even more gigantic and epic in Tolkien's book is given some clarity in this section. The actors playing the parts of the hobbits and the other heroes, are more or less adequate for the parts, with a few parts standing out (John Hurt as Aragorn and William Squire as Gandalf).

The lack of extra characterization does end up making things seem a little face-value for those who've not even seen the other films or read the books and can't put them into context. But there is some level of interest always with the characters, and here there's a more old-fashioned sensibility amid the large aura of it being more. This is not a garden variety Disney adaptation- warts and all, this is a Bakshi film, with his underground animation roots colliding with the mythical world of Middle Earth.

And what Bakshi and his animation team bring to the film is one that ends up giving what is on screen, in all its abbreviated form, its hit or miss appeal. Along with being not totally complete as a film, or as stories, the form of the film is an experiment, to see if something can be entirely rotoscoped. The results end up bringing what seems now to be retro, but at the time of course was something that was a rough, crazy inspiration on the part of the filmmakers. Might it have been better with more traditional drawn animation? In some parts, yeah; it does become a little noticeable, as was also the case in Bakshi's American Pop, that the main characters move in such ways that are a little shaky, like some kind of comic-book form done in a different way. Still, there's much I admired in what was done.

The orcs, for example, I found to be really amazing in they're surreal surroundings. They're maybe the best part of the combination of the animation on top of the live-action, especially during parts where there isn't battle footage (that's really the real hit-or-miss section, as there isn't continuity from the good and bad rotoscoping), and the chiaroscuro comes through with big shapes on top of horseback. It's creepy in a good way. And the backgrounds, while also very rough and sometimes too sketchy, are beautiful with the mixtures and blasts of colors together. It's almost something for art-film buffs as much as for the ring-nuts.

So, how would I recommend this animated take on the Lord of the Rings? I don't know, to tell the truth. It's certainly a good notch above the other Tolkien animated film I've seen, the Hobbit (and I've yet to see the animated ROTK), and there is some real artistry going on. There's also some stilted dialog, an all-too-rushed Two Towers segment with the most intriguing character Gollum being reduced to maybe two scenes in all. And seeing something as fragmented like this ends up only reinforcing the completeness of the more recent films.

If you're a fan of the books contemplating checking this out, I would say it's worth a chance, even if it's one of those chances where you watch for forty minutes and then decide whether to stop it or not. As for it fitting into Bakshi's other films I've seen it's an impressive ambitious and spotty achievement, where as with Lynch's Dune it's bound to draw a dark, mordor-like line in the sand between those who hate it passionately and those who don't. I don't.