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

A: please, future writers, producers, directors - learn from this movie!

never before have i seen such a bold and original tale created for the big movie screen. bold, because the script constantly made a step so many fantasy movies safely avoided - a step to something new, creative and daring. just when you think 'oh, i've seen this before' or 'i am sure this is what will happen now' - StarDust would make an unexpected twist and involve you more and more into the story.

the actors are great - even the smallest part is performed with such talent it fills me with awe for the creators of this movie. Robert De Niro is gorgeous and performs with such energy that he simply steals the show in each scene he's in. Michelle Pfeiffer is the perfect witch, and Claire Danes a wonderful choice for the innocent and loving 'star', Yvaine. Other big names make outstanding roles. I had the filling everyone is trying to give his best for this movie. But once again, the story by Neil Gaiman, all the little things he 'invented' for this universe - simply outstanding.

I watched this movie at a pre-screening today, a day before the official release, and do hope it will have huge success. There is so much humor, but also tense moments as well as lovely tender scenes. The look in the eyes of Yvaine, the 'frivolities' of Captain Shakespeare, the passion of Lamia the witch - impressive, unforgettable

For me this is the number one entertaining movie of 2007, watch it and enjoy it

11/10 - Outstanding

peace and love

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

A: This "clever" film was originally a Japanese film. And while I assume that original film was pretty bad, it was made a good bit worse when American-International Films hacked the film to pieces and inserted American-made segments to fool the audience. Now unless your audience is made of total idiots, it becomes painfully obvious that this was done--and done with little finesse or care about the final product. The bottom line is that you have a lot of clearly Japanese scenes and then clearly American scenes where the film looks quite different. Plus, the American scenes really are meaningless and consist of two different groups of people at meetings just talking about Gamera--the evil flying turtle! And although this is a fire-breathing, flying and destructive monster, there is practically no energy because I assume the actors were just embarrassed by being in this wretched film--in particular, film veterans Brian Donlevy and Albert Dekker. They both just looked tired and ill-at-ease for being there.

Now as for the monster, it's not quite the standard Godzilla-like creature. Seeing a giant fanged turtle retract his head and limbs and begin spinning through the air like a missile is hilarious. On the other hand, the crappy model planes, destructible balsa buildings and power plant are, as usual, in this film and come as no surprise. Plus an odd Japanese monster movie cliche is included that will frankly annoy most non-Japanese audience members, and that is the "adorable and precocious little boy who loves the monster and believes in him". Yeah, right. Well, just like in GODZILLA VERSUS THE SMOG MONSTER and several other films, you've got this annoying creep cheering on the monster, though unlike later incarnations of Godzilla, Gamera is NOT a good guy and it turns out in the end the kid is just an idiot! Silly, exceptional poor special effects that could be done better by the average seven year-old, bad acting, meaningless American clips and occasionally horrid voice dubbing make this a wretched film. Oddly, while most will surely hate this film (and that stupid kid), there is a small and very vocal minority that love these films and compare them to Bergman and Kurosawa. Don't believe them--this IS a terrible film!

FYI--Apparently due to his terrific stage presence, Gamera was featured in several more films in the 60s as well as some recent incarnations. None of these change the central fact that he is a fire-breathing flying turtle or that the movies are really, really lame.

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

A:
*SPOILER ALERT: I wish I could discuss this without revealing specific plot points, but I can't. Sorry.*

I was looking for an IMDb review of the George C. Scott movie when I stumbled across the summary and reviews for this version. It had so many positive reviews that I decided to order it even though: (a)while truncated and rushed, I thought George C. Scott embodied the tortured nature (and physical appearance) of the book's Rochester to a T; and (b)even while looking at the DVD's cover, I was thinking "Isn't Timothy Dalton too good-looking for the role?" The latter concern was reinforced by the fact that I decided to re-read the book while the DVD was on backorder. That said, the minute I started watching this, I was captivated. At first it was disconcerting to hear 1840's dialog spoken as written--with little or no attempts at modernization--but Dalton and Clarke threw themselves into it so thoroughly, that I actually enjoyed the fact that the adapters trusted the audience to follow archaic speech. To have so much of the book up on the screen was an extra bonus. I know someone who won't watch any versions of Jane Eyre because "who wants to see a film about a man who keeps a poor crazy woman in the attic?" Frankly, if someone who hadn't read the book stumbled across the hour and a half or two hour versions, they would think that's pretty much all the story entails--Rochester's secret and its affect on everyone around him. Luckily, this version is actually about Jane Eyre's whole life.

Some people have criticized the casting. Dalton is too dashing; Clarke is too reserved. I can't argue against the first point, but he is so "in the moment" that I believe he IS Rochester. To me, Clarke's performance is on the mark. Jane Eyre is quiet, guarded. If one remembers the book, so much of the adult Jane's fieriness and passion occurs during her private struggles. Some of the criticisms baffle me. Reviewers say Clarke is too short or isn't pretty enough. The book goes on ad infinitum about how small and plain Jane is. Ms. Clarke shouldn't be tall and the filmmakers toned down her looks to make Jane's declarations of her lack of beauty credible. She can scarcely help it if Dalton is tall. Some say there is no chemistry between the leads. What?!! The scene when Jane finally comes out of her room after the wedding fiasco fairly vibrates with passion and longing and sadness and regret--and that's just the first example that comes to mind.

I do agree with some of the other criticisms. I too missed more scenes with Helen Burns and the Rivers siblings. Some of the dialog was oddly truncated. When Rochester declares, "Jane, you misjudge me. I do not hate her because she is mad," I waited for the rest of the exchange when Rochester explains how if Jane were to go mad, he would still love and care for her. It's a powerful moment in the book, and I wish it had been included. I think it was a mistake to bring a scene with Rochester into the part of the story where Jane is on her own. It might have been done for clarity's sake, but I found it jarring. I wanted the sly humor of the scene where Jane opines that Rochester's ardor will cool and he'll become gruff again, but he may "like" her again by and by. Dalton's performance is so good that the rare misstep is glaring--when Rochester weeps in the library, I saw him as an actor doing a crying scene, not as Rochester. As for the sets, if anyone has ever caught an episode of the 1960's show "Dark Shadows," one knows what to expect--very stark and sometimes rickety looking interiors. Others have commented thoroughly and succinctly about the make-up job Rochester sports at the end. Yikes! It IS bad. The conclusion is too abrupt. After all that anguish and suspense, I wanted a more rounded off ending. And, on my copy of the DVD, having credits at the beginning and end of all eleven 25-30 minute episodes gets to be a bit much. That said, I am so glad I have this film and will watch it again and again.