Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Yes, about the only thing this film is memorable for is that it starred a youngish Tom Hanks who only a few short years later would be a relevant star in Hollywood. Here though is not a movie that is going to showcase his talents much at all and the only other thing that might be considered somewhat entertaining about this flick is the scene where he thinks he sees a monsters and runs a guy through. Yes, this movie is about the evils of playing a game that makes a group of people use their imaginations and try to come up with interesting scenarios. Basically, an after school type special about the evils of the game Dungeons and Dragons cleverly retitled here as Mazes and Monsters. Apparently, the makers of this film thought that nerds should not have fun of any sort unless they were going to go out and do underage drinking, drugs, having lots of unprotected sex and harass other weaker children like all the popular kids were doing. No, these bad people were playing a game that actually required one to use there brain, heaven's no! Not that, if they have a brain they actually may be able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by certain groups out there. Yes, I think this movie is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Granted, it could be a movie against addiction, but there are a lot fewer people who died taking Dungeons and Dragons to far in its entire existence than than say what drunk driving claims in like a month.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.

The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.

The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).

Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.

This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What an unfortunate mess is "Shiner." I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.

While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the "straight" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.

With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.

As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.

Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since.

Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.

The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.

A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.

Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn.