Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This 1974 Naschy outing is directed by Leon Klimovsky, and a cursory glance at the publicity photos and packaging might lead you to believe that this medieval romp lies somewhere between "Inquisition" and "Sadomania". Sadly not.

This is a strictly PG affair with tame torture sequences, no nudity and little edge at all. Naschy (of whom I am a fan) struts his stuff as Gilles de Lancre, "antiguo Mariscal de la nacion". Sadly he is more pantomime villain than anything else. One gets the feeling with this film that we have seen him (and it) done all before. Strictly therefore for Naschy completest only.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: 'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have to be honest and say I bought this movie, not because of the content, but because David Cubitt is in it; I know ... shallow, or what? - but, come on, Mr Cubitt is a fantastic actor to put it mildly.

I really didn't know what to expect from watching this movie, I'd read the other write up, and those on other sites but I have to say I was drawn into the world of the brothers almost from the get go. David Cubitt as Theo, and Colm Feore as Ryan are so believable as the two estranged brothers, the film moves through their relationship as they start to try getting to know each other again after their fathers death. The scene where Theo finds out Ryan is gay was played brilliantly, he literally walks in on a scene and tries to leave without Ryan noticing - which of course he has.

The film has been very well researched and is therefore incredibly sad, moving, uplifting and a celebration of life in parts. I came away from this feeling sad at what Ryan went through but also with the knowledge that he was given hope and unconditional love by the ex drug addict brother Theo. I agree with the other reviewer who finds the scene where Theo says he will be a father moving, and I'd go a little further to say I actually vocalised my thoughts at Ryan when he cruelly says to Theo 'What makes you think you can be a father' and Theo says simply 'You.' Theo walks away then, but that small exchange of dialogue speaks volumes to the almost self pitying aspect of Ryan who is brought up sharply by the simple retort.

A brilliantly conceived movie on all counts, the acting, directing, writing etc are all so well done. I can't really find anything else to say about this movie, except to say that it is very hard dealing with the death of a loved one but this is done superbly, to the infinite degree. The respect for the subject matter and the outpouring of love (without being contrite and mawkish) speaks volumes in this rather selfish world we live in today. Well done to all concerned.

Not many movies bring me to tears and give me pause to think about life in general, and also to be glad for all the things I have and not be sad for the things I don't, but this movie did, it was unbelievably uplifting considering the subject matter.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
When you start watching this animation-masterpiece, you quickly notice, that it's a European production. Although the Europeans have (sadly) integrated some of the cliches you would normally find in an American production of this kind, most are missing. One of these is that there is an overwhelming evil that only our (very few and very unlikely) heroes can vanquish. Another is that one of the group is only in the business for the money, is greedy, runs away when the heat is up but somehow gives in to his better nature. This movie would have been better off without both.

The movie is based upon a TV-Series that was out four years before the movie. Unlike the movie, the TV-Series is a cartoon and not a computer animation. At first I thought the computer would kill the charm and character of the plot but I was quickliy convinced: Whoever did the animation knew his or her stuff! Although the characters are obviously fictional (in stills they don't even look real), they seem as alive and sentient as the audience following their quest. Making characters who by "normal" standards could be considered deformed (those micro-legs could never carry that giant body let alone make it jump) so alive and lovable is more than "just a highlight"! The creation of the world is another masterpiece. Not so much because of its looks but because of the inventiveness of it. The world our heroes travel is not solid like our own but is made of many pieces of land varying in shape and size that seem to be floating in mid air. When a person steps on a smaller fragment of ground, it nods a little bit as if feathering from the weight. In some cases up and down no longer apply but our heroes still manage to get a foothold somewhere. Although the world of floating islands is completely surreal, in this movie it is absolutely believable and after a short time it doesn't seem any weirder than running into a car somewhere in New York.

I wrote that the looks of the world aren't as breathtaking as the idea. As true as that might be to my mind, the quality of the world, the characters and the attention to details is staggering. Although the faces of the characters have relatively few attributes, emotions can be read as clearly as in Sean Connery's or Dustin Hoffman's face. The world around the characters is wonderfully colourful and no two settings are alike. The background is always in motion, something is always going on which makes the world seem even more alive. If you stop the movie and look at the background you will be surprised how many details you can find.

The existence of Hector actually puts the cherry on top. Hector is a furry little "thing" (possibly the equivalent of a dog in our world) who is totally lovable and extremely funny. Although he isn't really important for the main plot, he would be missed like Scrat would be in Ice Age. The really cool thing about Hector is that you need to speak Gibberish to understand him.

If the movie is so great, why didn't I give it 10 stars? Well, the plot in itself was rather thin. Two hunters are sent out to rescue the world from a really bad dragon who wants to swallow the world, isn't really original. That in itself wouldn't be much of a problem. What I missed was the background information. What kind of a dragon was this and why did it look that way? I love mythical stories but if they get too thin then they seem to be written after the movie is finished in a feeble attempt to give the whole thing some depth.

Another thing I didn't like was Zoe. Although a little girl like her could be considered adorable, she was somewhat of a pain in this movie. She seemed pretty resistant to all types of learning about reality, kept dreaming of some hero from a story book and basically slowed the others down. She would have been OK if she had developed a little more and a little earlier in the movie - or had been less of a girly to start with. To me the idea of this girl who was there to twist the story a little backfired on the writers.

All in all, this is a really good movie for just about all ages.