Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.

The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.

The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.

The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.

The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.

All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.

I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.

Not a great flick, it's really typically a "B" action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of "blah" but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average "B" action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.

Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like today!

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
As the film opens, two thugs kill another thug. When the body is discovered and about to be autopsied, the doctor realizes that although the man was shot dead, he was also suffering from the Pneumonic plague--a very nasty and more virulent version of the Bubonic plague! So, it's a race against time to find those who came in contact with the dead man and treat them immediately, otherwise a disaster could erupt.

Oddly, I actually know quite a bit about the Pneumonic plague, as I taught a series of lectures on it for my history classes. The film really did not do a good job of getting the facts right about the disease in that it looked little like what the people had in the movie. The biggest problem is that this illness is so incredibly grotesque that in 1950 they really wouldn't have been allowed to show it. Sure, there is high fever and coughing (they got this right) but also lots of bleeding and explosive vomiting of blackened blood--along with the enormously swollen lymph nodes like you'd get with the Bubonic plague--all purply and gross! I can certainly understand why they didn't go this far. Also, I am sure that the federal government would have had a much, much greater involvement in controlling and treating the disease--here in the film it was handled on a very local level and everyone seemed ill-prepared and a bit dumb. No one seemed willing to believe the doctors!! As for the acting, the film had some excellent actors here. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are, respectively, the public health doctor and police chief. Good actors but also known actors back in 1950. However, in his first film is the very menacing Jack Palance (still going by his original moniker, 'Walter Jack Palance') as well as the relatively unknown (at the time) Zero Mostel. Palance was great--very scary and very physically adept in his own stunts. Mostel played a heavy typical of his early work--a greasy and cowardly sort of evil.

Overall, despite really not getting the details right and wrapping everything up a little too neatly, the film is very tense and has excellent acting--and is well worth seeing.