Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.

Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.

Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.

10/10

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When it came out, this was pretty much state of the art musical film entertainment. To this day it's more entertaining than most, in great part because it has James Cagney in the lead role as a musical prologue producer under a succession of deadlines and sheltered from all storms by his trusty "girl Friday" played by Joan Blondell. Also the musical numbers towards the end which were put together by Busby Berkeley are pretty much a knock-out as far as that type of thing goes.

But this is a pretty strange movie. I mean in one of those numbers, you've got Billy Barty running around pretending to be a lovable toddler, doing all kinds of weird stuff. Ruby Keeler seems to have a sickening smile plastered on her face at all times, but at least she's not required to act like in some of her later unfortunate films. You'd never guess that Dick Powell was any kind of tough guy from seeing him in this movie; apparently all the tough guy energy was allocated to the star Cagney. As for Cagney, his high speed rants about musical shows and so forth are endearing and annoying at the same time. After a while it gets a bit too much. You expect him to walk out and say, "Hey! I've got a great idea for a prologue! The women are cigarettes, and they come out of a pack of smokes! Oh no, we did that one last month!" It's funny but it gets a bit repetitive. In the moments where he has to get tough with the bad girl, Ruth Donnelly, some of the established Cagney gangster character comes out. In fact frequent B gangster director William Keighley is credited here with dialogue coaching, and it seems at times that Cagney and Blondell are invoking something very "street" even though the characters aren't criminal.

The musical numbers... what can you say? They stand alone as entertainment, the way that Berkeley uses the human body and geometry is really startling. But none of them really mean anything. It means "Honeymoon Hotel", nothing really more or less. And the whole pretense of the integration falls apart immediately, since the characters in the show are doing things that couldn't possibly be appreciated by a theater audience like the movie portrays. For example at one point they show the fine print on a newspaper, things like that. The whole thing could only exist on film, so the idea that the prologues are actually live shows is ridiculous. I can only suppose that audiences of the time were somewhat less critical about things like this than they would be ten years later or so, because this is a very polished production.

It's great to see Cagney himself show off his superb dancing skills, and he can actually share the stage with a dancer like Keeler. Cagney and Blondell have excellent chemistry and their scenes go off really well. The music I would say is only mediocre, but mostly pleasing if repetitive. Bacon's direction in general is very suitable but never interesting. The film's entertainment value is unquestionable and it has also picked up some nostalgic value along the way. It's a cut above most "let's put on a show" films of the 30s.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Police, investigations, murder, suspicion: we are all so acquainted with them in movies galore. Most of the films nowadays deal with crime which is believed to involve viewers, to provide them with a thrilling atmosphere. However, most of thrill lovers will rather concentrate on latest movies of that sort forgetting about older ones. Yet, it occurs that these people may easily be misled. A film entirely based on suspicion may be very interesting now despite being more than 20 years old...it is GARDE A VUE, a unique movie by Claude Miller.

Is there much of the action? Not really since the events presented in the movie take place in a considerably short time. But the way they are executed is the movie's great plus. Jerome Charles Martinaud (Michel Serrault) is being investigated by Inspector Gallien (Lino Ventura) and Insector Belmont (Guy Marchand). It's a New Year's Eve, a rainy evening and not very accurate for such a meeting. Yet, after the rape and murder of two children, at the dawn of the old year, the door of suspicion must be open at last. In other words, (more quoted from the movie), it must be revealed who an evil wolf really is. To achieve this, one needs lots of effort and also lots of emotions from both parties...

Some people criticize the script for being too wordy. Yet, I would ask them: what should an investigation be like if not many questions and, practically, much talk. This wordiness touches the very roots of the genre. In no way is this boring but throughout the entire film, it makes you, as a viewer, as an observer, involved. Moreover, the film contains well made flashbacks as the stories are being told. Not too much and not too little of them - just enough to make the whole story clearer and more interesting. The most memorable flashbacks, for me, are when Chantal (Romy Schneider), Martinaud's wife, talks about one lovely Christmas... But these flashbacks also contain the views of the places, including the infamous beach. It all wonderfully helped me keep the right pace. And since I saw GARDE A VUE, I always mention this film as one of the "defenders" of French cinema against accusations of mess and chaos.

But those already mentioned aspects may not necessarily appeal to many viewers since they might not like such movies and still won't find the content and its execution satisfactory. Yet, GARDE A VUE is worth seeing also for such people. Why? For the sake of performances. But here don't expect me to praise foremost Romy Schneider. GARDE A VUE is not Romy Schneider vehicle. She does a terrific job as a mother who is deeply in despair for a lost child. She credibly portrays a person who is calm, concrete, who does not refuse an offered cup of tea but who does not want to play with words. Her part which includes a profound talk of life and duty is brilliant, more credible than the overly melancholic role of Elsa in LA PASSANTE DE SANS SOUCI. It is still acted. However, Romy Schneider does not have much time on screen. Practically, she appears for the first time after 45 minutes from the credits; she, as a wife and a different viewpoint, comes symbolically with the New Year, at midnight. Her role is a purely supporting one. Who really rocks is Lino Ventura. He IS the middle aged Inspector Antoine Gallien who wants to find out the truth, who is aware that his questions are "missiles" towards the other interlocutor but does not hesitate. He is an inspector who, having been married three times, is perfectly acknowledged of women's psyche. He is the one who does not regard his job as a game to play but a real service. Finally, he is a person who does not find it abnormal to sit there on New Year's Eve. Michel Serrault also does a fine job expressing fear, particularly in the final scenes of the movie. But thumbs up for Mr Ventura. Brilliant!

As far as memorable moments are concerned, this is not the sort of film in which this aspect is easily analyzed. The entire film is memorable, has to be seen more than once and has to be felt with its atmosphere and, which I have not mentioned before, gorgeous music. For me, the talk of Chantal and Inspector Gallien is the most brilliant flawless moment. You are there with the two characters, you experience their states of mind if you go deeper into what you see.

GARDE A VUE is a very interesting film, a must see for thrill lovers and connoisseurs of artistic performances. New Year has turned and...is it now easier to open the door? You'll find out when you decide to see the memorably directed movie by Claude Miller. 8/10