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

A: Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).

Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment.

Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").

Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.

Others just have a small presence.

Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.

Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").

Thx
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I've always liked Fred MacMurray, andalthough her career was tragically cut shortI think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you geta mediocre movie experience.

Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) "meet cute" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yesit's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.

Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.

This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A fun concept, but poorly executed. Except for the fairly good makeup effects, there's really not much to it. There are obvious problems; for example, after taking what seems to be weeks and weeks to get from fat to normal size, the main character seems to go from normal size to deathly thin in days... and once he's deathly thin he stays pretty much equally deathly thin for what seems to be a long time.

In any case, the movie has far worse problems than that--the cinematography is decidedly low-budget-TV-show quality and most of all the acting is pretty awful all around. Robert John Burke seems to always be trying for some kind of weird snarling Charlton Heston impersonation and is literally painful to watch... the only scary thing is that Lucinda Jenney and Kari Wuhrer are both even worse.

The only reason why I'm giving this movie as high as I am is that once the movie enters its last 1/3 or so and Joe Mantegna's character takes over, the movie develops a fun, campy 'cheesefest slaughterhouse' feel, and the gangster's crazy schemes for tormenting the totally obnoxious gypsies are somewhat fun to watch. The ending, if predictable, is also nicely mean. Avoid unless you're a King-o-Phile or are REALLY psyched up at the idea of the voice of Fat Tony from the Simpsons terrorizing a gypsy camp.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Having seen and loved Greg Lombardo's most recent film "Knots" (he co-wrote and directed that feature as well), I decided to check out his earlier work, and this movie was well worth the effort and rental. Macbeth in Manhattan is a tongue in cheek, excellent take on the Shakespeare favorite, updated and moved to NYC. I was impressed by the underlying wit and intelligence of the script and was wowed by the way the storyline of the production in the movie mirrors the storyline of the play itself - and very cleverly at that. The trials and tribulations of life in Manhattan parallel many a Shakespeare play, and Central Park was rarely put to better use than as the woods around Macbeth's castle. Mr. Lombardo obviously has a fond place in his heart for New York and New York stories (Knots is a funny and warm sex comedy about six thirty-something New Yorkers set primarily in a charming Brooklyn neighborhood, with Manhattan offices and a downtown loft thrown in for good measure) and has spent considerable time around the plays of Shakespeare. The movie is well-paced and the story reflects a deep understanding of the essential drama at the core of Macbeth. It reminded me of Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" - another wonderful Shakespeare "play within a movie." I highly recommend checking out Macbeth in Manhattan.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: What happens when someone has so much social anxiety that they cease to function? How alone can one man get? When the mundane crap we have to do in order to be part of society gets to be too much, what happens? Frownland explores these questions. Definitely a startling original debut from Bronstein. The tone is strange and claustrophobic as we get inside the mind of a guy named Keith that is so messed up he can hardly form a proper sentence. We follow him around as he tries to make contact with people and function day to day. Most of us have known people like this- people that say "sorry" too much or "i appreciate it" when there's nothing to appreciate. So we know there are people out there like this but why would someone want to make a movie about them? Well, because its interesting and Bronstein and the lead actor, Dore Mann, do an excellent job. This film is about as un-commercial as a film can get. A few friends filmed it over the course of a few years as they saved money. It was shot on 16mm and the scratched film look is beautifully low budget. With no distributer, this may be a tough one to find, I think it's been screening randomly for the past year or so. Hopefully it'll be on DVD at some point. I saw it at the Silent Movie Theater here in LA. There were 10 people in the audience, among them Crispin Glover, if that tells you anything about how weird this movie is. Highly recommended.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.