Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing

Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit

Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money

With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, "Cliffhanger" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.

Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.

Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.

Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.

In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.

If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.

And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.

The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Critics need to review what they class as a quality movie. I think the critics have seen too many actions films and have succumbed to the Matrix style of films. Europa is a breath of fresh air, a film with so many layers that one viewing is not enough to understand or appreciate this outstanding film. Lars von Trier shows that old styles of filming can produce marvellous cinema and build drama and tension. The back projection effect he uses during the film arouses and enhances the characters, and the focus of the conversation they are having. Other effects he uses such as the colour and black and white in one scene much like Hitchcock and the girl with the red coat grabs attention and enhances the drama and meaning of the scene. The commentary is superb and has a hypnotic effect, again maintaining the focus on the central characters in the scene and there actions.

I could talk about the effects more but I think you all would agree they push this film into a category of its own, and really heighten the drama of the film. A film to buy if you don't own already and one to see if you have not.

10/10 Don't miss this artistic noir film from one of the great film directors.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone wholike all of usis now fourteen years older, andunlike most of usstill looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.

The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.

I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.