Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.

Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.

Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.

The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.

At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. "Little" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. "Little" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and "Little" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.

At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.

However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a pretty OK film... yes some parts are lame and exceptionally convenient, and the movie doesn't really justify the large star cast (AB, SD, Tanuja). However, the actor that really impressed me here was Kay Kay Menon (not to be confused with the singer KK). In the scene where he first meets Amitabh's character, I thought that a man who can just look at AB, keep staring and not say a word, and still look strong, is definitely a good actor. In fact, he has proved himself worthy again in Sarkar, alongside AB for a second time. This guy should get more roles, he's brilliant.

If you've read any of the other reviews here on IMDb, you already know the plot, and I do agree that Akshaye Khanna's entry into Pakistan was a little too easy. And the little love angle he shared with "what's-her-face" was completely unnecessary. But he is a fairly good actor (as seen in DCH), Sunjay Dutt is cool to watch, always. and AB... what can I say. I don't know if I'm his biggest fan in the world, but I know I can definitely compete for the spot.

An interesting watch, considering it's Bollywood, although a bit inspired by Hollywood oldies like "the Great Escape" and "Bridge on the River Kwai".
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.

At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.

Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.

Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...

I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.

SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)