Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.

The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.

By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.

It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.

Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Barbra Streisand is a tour de force in this Hollywood story. Her performances and the songs are one-of-a-kind and are special in the halls of great movies. The scene where she is introduced to the unexpecting audience by Kristopherson, against the crowds' wishes and hers, only to turn them around with her magnificent performance of "Woman In the Moon" is one of the best examples on film of how well a great performer can win over an audience. It's real. The scene where she records Evergreen ranks with the best in the business.. all live, no lip-sync, very special. Streisand is often criticized for being a Diva, but she delivers on this one. She is majestic singing "With One More Look At You. She deserved the Oscar she and Paul Williams got for Evergreen. Kristopherson had his moments too, far above most of his movie appearances. This version of the "Born" franchise ranks with the first one of 1937 (Janet Gaynor, Frederic March)although I will always enjoy Judy Garland and James Mason musical remake of 1954. I haven't seen the DVD yet and don't know about its quality.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have this movie on DVD and must have watched it thirty times by now. I must really love it, right? Well, not really.

I was a surfer earlier in my life, and I loved the sport. To this day, I am fascinated by good surfing. Riding Giants has plenty of that, and thus I am a sucker for the thing. But I definitely have some bones to pick with it. (Peralta, you listening?).

First, the movie has too little faith in its subject matter. The cutting and editing of the waves is such that the majority of them are sort of ruined. Very, very few waves are actually shown ridden from start to finish. Peralta seems addicted to a hyper kinetic, cut-and-pace method. It gets especially bad in the middle section on the spot Mavericks in Northern California. Not a single wave is ridden start to finish. Almost the entire section on Mavericks (one third of the movie) is a jarring montage of clips with an equally jarring soundtrack. I can understand the effect Peralta was trying to achieve with Mavericks, as the place is a truly frightening mix of bone crushing waves in frigid open ocean chop, but he goes way too far. Mavericks is not just a bad acid trip. Waves are actually ridden there, even with great performances. It would have been good to see some of them. If Peralta thinks this is a grand sport (and I am sure he does), then why does he insist on messing with the subject matter so much? At times, the editing reduces the movie to the inscrutable. There is one fast clip in the section on Peahi in Hawaii, which I still cannot understand. Even if I run it on slow motion on DVD, the image is too fast to be decipherable. It must be a couple of frames in length at the max.

Second, have the guys who made this thing ever learned about understatement? It is particularly galling to watch the narrated directors' version on DVD. These guys sound like two over-the-top valley girls. The same sentiment shows up in the main production. Every thing is always so goddamn "amazing" etc. One character in particular is just plain obnoxious -- Sam George, the editor of Surfer Magazine, who is practically peeing in his pants every time he has anything to say. He is a super drag on the movie.

There is a tremendous amount of effort that went into this movie. I mean, just to get the old movie shots they have, and also, all of the interviews. The movie is a great story, and I think it is generally captivating entertainment. Thematically it is well laid out, with the three parts centering around Greg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton respectively. There are some uses of still photography that are phenomenal. In the directors' narration, they say it is a new type of 3D technology, and it really works. The three principle characters shine, both in their interviews and in the water. As an athlete, Laird Hamilton is a revelation. He rises to the pinnacle of his sport in a way that I have only seen Michael Jordan do in basketball. And too, the story of his meeting his father is a gem. It really touched me.

It is just that the movie could have been so much more. The very last part of the movie, when the credits roll, gives a hint of what it could have been. There are some beautiful panoramic shots of waves with a magnificent soundtrack. (The soundtrack in the rest of the movie is rubbish, though you may like it if you are fan of the modern, frenetic school of rock.) Anyway there's my two cents...

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it.