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

A: If you haven't seen the gong show TV series then you won't like this movie much at all, not that knowing the series makes this a great movie.

I give it a 5 out of 10 because a few things make it kind of amusing that help make up for its obvious problems.

1) It's a funny snapshot of the era it was made in, the late 1970's and early 1980's. 2) You get a lot of funny cameos of people you've seen on the show. 3) It's interesting to see Chuck (the host) when he isn't doing his on air TV personality. 4) You get to see a lot of bizarre people doing all sorts of weirdness just like you see on the TV show.

I won't list all the bad things because there's a lot of them, but here's a few of the most prominent.

1) The Gong Show Movie has a lot of the actual TV show clips which gets tired at movie length. 2) The movie's story line outside of the clip segments is very weak and basically is made up of just one plot point. 3) Chuck is actually halfway decent as an actor, but most of the rest of the actors are doing typical way over the top 1970's flatness.

It's a good movie to watch when you don't have an hour and a half you want to watch all at once. Watch 20 minutes at a time and it's not so bad. But even then it's not so good either. ;)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.

Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...

Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.

A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.

Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.

Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline.

Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?)

Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.

To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case."
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen.

If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.

Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.

I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is "Swim Fan" which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.

This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.

Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it...
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I've been intrigued by this film for a while, in part because of the extremely high score here on IMDb -- a 9.0 average with over 300 votes gives it the highest rating of any accessible silent film! How had I not heard of this film before this website? Well, you can't always trust the ratings. This is actually a very good film, preserved quite well if the fine VHS transfer I rented is any indication -- excellent acting by the principals, especially William Haines as Brown, and good location work at Cambridge with some fine action footage in the climactic Harvard/Yale football game -- but the story must have seemed a hoary chestnut even in 1926. Obnoxious, self-centered and charismatic guy goes to school and gets put in his place, becoming in the process a caring, self-sacrificing friend; I doubt people in 1926 found much that was really exciting in the last few reels, the predictability factor is high. Still, it starts out very well, and is certainly deserving of being remembered, if not praised to the heavens. Maybe the previous 350 voters are mostly Harvard men...

EDIT Now 600+ voters and the score has actually climbed to 9.2! Seriously, folks, there is ballot-stuffing going on here - I defy anybody to explain why this is a better film than "Metropolis" or "The General"!