An example of a movie review. positive.

A: So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.

Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.

My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.

The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.

Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.

All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.

Check this one out.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: No one would argue that this 1945 war film was a masterpiece. (How could any 1945 war film be a masterpiece?) And yet this is an extremely effective telling of a true story, that of Al Schmidt, blinded on Guadalcanal, as played by John Garfield, who spent days wearing a blindfold to capture the nuances of a blind person's actions. Robert Leckie, in "Helmet for My Pillow",denigrates Schmidt's popularity in favor of his foxhole mate, who was killed, writing that "the country must have needed live heroes."

Well, I suppose the country did. And they had one here. There is a single combat scene in the movie, bound to the studio lot, lasting only ten minutes or so, and occurring less than halfway through the film instead of being saved for the climax, but it is the scariest and most realistic depiction of men under fire that I can remember having seen on screen, including those in "Saving Private Ryan". Men yell with fear, scream at each other and at the enemy, and bleed and die, without the aid of color, stereophonic sound, squibs, or gore.

Simply from a technological point of view, the film is outstanding. It isn't just that we learn how complicated a mechanism a .30 caliber, water-cooled Browning machine gun is, or that it must be fired in bursts of only a few rounds, or that it isn't waved around like a fire hose, as in so many other war movies. The technical precision adds to the scene's riveting quality. The need to stick to short bursts is horrifying when dozens of shrieking enemies are pouring across a creek fifty feet away with the sole aim of exterminating you and your two isolated comrades confined to a small gun emplacement.

The performances are solid, if not bravura, including those of the ubiquitous 1940s support, John Ridgeley, and a radiant, youthful Eleanor Parker. The framing love story is spare, but it works, and ultimately is quite moving. A striking dream sequence is included. It's not Bunuel, but for a routine 1945 film, it stands out as original and effective.

Albert Maltz may have overwritten the script, or it may have been altered by someone else. It could have used the kind of pruning that might have introduced some much needed ambiguity. Still, there are odd verbal punctuations that have a surprising impact on the viewer -- "Why don't God strike me dead?" And, "In the eyes, Lee. Get 'em in the eyes!" Depths of anguish in a few corny words. And a surprising amount of bitterness expressed by wounded veterans in a 1945 war film.

Notes that might seem false to a contemporary viewer but perhaps shouldn't: the dated vernacular which it's difficult to believe many of today's kids could think was actually ever spoken -- "private gab," "dope", "drip," "Gee," "you dumb coot," "dame," "a swell guy," and "feeling sorry for yourself." Let us consider the historical context and be kind in our judgments. At the time, some of this goofy lingo was at the cutting edge.

Real weak points? The wounded veterans get together and argue with each other about how much of a collective future they have and the argument is oversimply resolved with a conclusion along the lines of, "Just because you have a silver plate in your head doesn't mean people will think you're a bad person." There are sometimes voice overs and silent prayers that are both unnecessary and downright unimaginative. "Please, God, let him return to me," and that sort of thing.

Well, the film makers were operating within the constraints of their times. Maybe that's why the final fade is on a shot of Independence Hall and the inspiring strains of "America the Beautiful" swell in the back.

None of this can undo the film's virtues, which are considerable, particularly the impact of that horrifying combat scene. It's not on television that often. If you have a chance, by all means catch it.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A:
Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat.