Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner.

Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.

The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos.

There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.

WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.

Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This has always been one of my favourite movies, and will always be. Over the last few years I have become a 50's / 60's Sci-fi freak, trying to collect all of the better ones that were made back then. I love lots of things about them from how corny they could be to how technically correct some of them were. The great colours and the sets get me going too. It's a pity when they re-make some of these good old movies; they nearly always stuff it up, - just look at the recent re-do of The day the Earth stood still, it's utter garbage!! Forbidden Planet is one of the benchmark space films of all time, and now they're trying to re-make it too, and I shudder to think what the new one will be like! To my mind, some things, such as fantastic classic movies, should just be left alone to be what they are, classic examples of great attempts at telling simple stories, and giving people a thrill in the process. Once they add all the techno-crap that we have available now, the film just seems to be more dog-meat from the Hollywood sausage factory, - nothing special at all. By the way, I notice that the astronauts' uniforms in Forbidden Planet were also used for "Queen of Outer Space"! That just tells you that the budgets were a bit lower back then, doesn't it? Hey, less money and better films, hmmm....

Great performances in this movie from Leslie Nielsen, in a serious role, and Anne Francis, Walter Pidgeon (who has always been one of my favourite actors), Earl Holiman, and of course Robby the Robot!

The special effects are fantastic, and the storyline is not too far-fetched. This is a great sci-fi experience!