Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Fungicide" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful "film" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.

Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the "film"-makers will say that, yes, the "film" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.

Starting the "movie" it wasn't as though I was expecting "Citizen Kane" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.

The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a "fuse" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).

That summary is as good as the "film" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said "NO."

And those "special" effects. Well, they're "special" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).

One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.

I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The "film"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.

I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the "movie." "Fungicide" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It was fabulous! The photography, editing, cinematography, music combined to transport us to the dangerous side of a tourist destination. It was the enjoyment of "slumming," without going through the danger. We were there! The dream sequences and flashback-sequence-ending were fresh. It spoke to me. Keep up the good work! Another of that genre is City of God. Also - don't laugh! - the comedy, Desperately Seeking Susan. Nice ensemble types, with great performances by all. Sorry, I think Training Day fits that genre as well, with fantastic performances by an ensemble cast. I had to switch the channel on some of the gritty sequences, but all-in-all, a great film!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I really am shocked to see the number of reviews that lambaste this movie. This movie was not intended to be a "deep thought" movie, which is what the vast majority of the reviewers seem to think it should be. In fact, it would appear that if ANY movie doesn't produce a life altering insight, and a deep, twisted, mind boggling plot, they would rate it a 1 or 2. Don't trash a movie because you don't like the genre, people.

This movie was an Action/Comedy flick, and that's all it was intended to be. And for an Action/Comedy, it was very well done. I was actually rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did, having never really been a Jamie Foxx fan, and having the over-used plot that it has.

The plot was nothing spectacular, using the typical criminal gets out of prison, and is thrown into bad-guy plot while trying to clean up his act (See Blue Streak, Hudson Hawk, 48 Hours, etc. etc. etc.) but it was warmed over with a bit of a technological twist. Now the "bad guys" are actually the "good guys" and the REAL "bad guy" is an uber-geek.

Jamie Foxx actually plays a convincingly humorous, while at the same time rather intelligent and serious main character, and didn't try to overdo the humor side of the film.

If you're looking for a deep underlying plot such as in "The Matrix" or a drama such as "Of Mice and Men" then this movie isn't for you. But if you enjoy the raw action, excellent fast-paced filming, and an occasional twist of humor tossed in, this movie won't disappoint you. I would normally have rated it about an 8 (on the same level as the Die Hard Trilogy), but instead gave it a 10 to try and bring the score up to what it SHOULD be.

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

A: Brilliant execution in displaying once and for all, this time in the venue of politics, of how "good intentions do actually pave the road to hell". Excellent!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When HEY ARNOLD! first came on the air in 1996, I watched it. It was one of my favorite shows. Then the same episodes started getting shown over and over again so I got tired of waiting for new episodes and stopped watching it. I was sort of surprised when I heard about HEY ARNOLD! THE MOVIE since it doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as some of the other Nickelodeon cartoons like SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. Nevertheless, having nothing better to do, I went to see the movie anyway. Going into the theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was just expecting it to be a dumb movie version of a childrens' cartoon like the RECESS movie was. I guess I got what I expected. It was a dumb kiddie movie and nothing more. There were some good parts here and there, but for the most part, the movie was a stinker. Simply for kids.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.

So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief

Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it .