Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: What's inexplicable? Firstly, the hatred towards this movie. It may not be the greatest movie of all time, but gimme a break, it got 11 oscars for a reason, it made EIGHTEEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS for a reason. It's a damn good movie. Which brings to the other inexplicable aspect of it. I have no idea whatsoever why this movie left such an impression on me when I saw it in theaters. I've rewatched it on TV and video, and it had none of the impact it had when I saw it on the big screen (twice, or maybe three times, actually). But that might be it, the appeal of it. It's a Movie, yes, capital M there, it's an Epic, it's a spectacle in the order of Gone With the Wind or Ben Hur. Now, Ben Hur and Gone With the Wind seem kinda hokey to me, with the hammy acting and excessive melodrama. Not that Titanic has none of that. Well, the acting was actually very good. The melodrama was quite heavy-handed at times.

But the reason Titanic works is that it's such an emotional ride. I usually enjoy movies that stimulate the mind, or give me a visual thrill. This movie isn't exactly dumb, but it's not cerebral at all. The visual thrills are simply means to an end, to fuel the emotions of the audience. I didn't cry when Bambi's mom died, I don't react to tearjerkers. But this is a tearjerker to the power of ten million, an emotional rollercoaster that, if it were a regular one, would make Buzz Aldrin scream like a little girl. And I'm sure that if you see it on video and have decided that you hate it, and have a ready supply of cynicism, then you can thoroughly dislike this movie. But if you let that disbelief suspend just a bit, if you give this epic melodrama the benefit of the doubt, you'll enjoy it completely. And look at the top ten grossing films of all time. Is a single one of them bad? Is a single one of them worth a score of 1 out of 10? No, not even The Phantom Menace. And this movie made 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. It can't be bad. Not possible. 10/10.

p.s. how can anyone even consider comparing this to spiderman? spiderman was a fun movie, but it was a total 9/11 kneejerk that caused it to gross as much as it did. it simply wasn't anything all that special. no one will remember it in 50 years. but i'm pretty sure Titanic will be remembered.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Basically what we have here is little more than a remake of the hilarious 1970's classic kitsch horror 'Death Line' which ironically was like this cobblers, also partly filmed at the disused Aldwych underground station.

Making good use of the now disused Jubilee Line platforms at Charing Cross as well as the aforementioned Aldwych, this film contains basically the same plot - dodgy murdering mad zombie in the tunnels preying on the lost passengers who have missed the last train - originality is not this film's strong point.

Indeed strong points are sadly lacking. The gore ranges from the poor to the unnecessarily over gory whilst the sub-Gollum nutter is never really fully explained as seems little more than an under developed plot device.

Franke Polente has little to do with a thin script than run down a lot of tunnels and scream every so often, indeed she was like pretty much everyone else in this film, out-acted by a small dog and a pack of tame rats.

If creepy films set on the London Underground are your bag, or you just want to play 'spot the tube location' them pick this up on DVD when it hits a bargain bin. If you are looking for classic horror, go and dig up a copy of Death Line (aka Raw Meat).

If you are looking for a quality well written and acted film, you will need to change trains.....
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).

The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.

Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.

My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films.