Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky ("Snatch," "Sexy Beast," etc.). It's not wild like "Snatch" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.

It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian "mail order bride" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.

Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.

Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.

OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.

As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.

Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.

The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.

Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and cliches on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.

Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.

"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.

The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.

This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliche ridden.

I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.