Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler

it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Don't listen to the many acerbic and derisory comments heaped upon this film.....simply put, as regards ninja movies, this my friends is about as good as it gets!

Yes it's silly, yes the acting and script are admittedly absolutely atrocious, but by gum - it's so much bloody fun! In fact, as is often the case with B-Movies, the horrendous 'acting' (which in the case of the movie in question, is truly amongst the worst I have ever had the joy to behold!) and ridiculous 'plot' actually only serve to elevate the enjoyment level ten fold.

Obviously the fight scenes are the main attraction in this though and for the most part I'm pleased to say, they're very well choreographed, especially the final showdown (during which we witness that ninja are not ostensibly constrained by the normal laws of gravity....)

Trust me on this, if you are a fan of ninja movies and you have not yet seen Sakura Killers, then you are truly missing out on what is in my opinion, one of the true jewels in the crown of the genre.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
A fondly-remembered melodrama thanks chiefly to Ronald Colman's fine Oscar-winning central performance about an oft-treated theme: the nature of acting and how it can overtake one's perception of reality. In this case, we have a well-known thespian tackling Shakespeare's "Othello", so that the film's last third delves effectively into the thriller genre with press agent Edmond O'Brien (who happens to really be besotted with Colman's co-star and ex-wife Signe Hasso) 'investigating' the actor's possible involvement in the Desdemona-like strangling of a celebrity-seeking waitress (a very slim Shelley Winters). The theatrical/New York atmosphere of the immediate post-war era is vividly captured by the husband-and-wife screen writing team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon and legendary "actor's director" George Cukor (all of whom were recognized by the Academy with nominations); incidentally, the film nabbed a second Oscar for Miklos Rozsa's eclectic score. Colman, forever the suave leading man blessed besides with a velvety voice, does well enough by Shakespeare gaining conviction the farther his character slips into obsessive jealousy, a murderous rage and, eventually, paranoia; however, he is not let down by a supporting cast which also includes director Ray Collins, reporter Millard Mitchell, detective Joe Sawyer and coroner Whit Bissell. Though the mid-section is a bit strained, the film makes up for any deficiencies with a remarkably-handled Expressionist denouement.