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

A: Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by "the Pulse," it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Spoiler below, but read on or you'll never know the horrible fate that awaits all planing to rent "Rodentz".

On a moonlit night, in a remote research laboratory, a major medical breakthrough is about to have deadly results. A chemical compound that was created to "hunt and destroy" deadly cancer cells has leaked from the hazardous waste disposal system into the building's basement. Now, the rodents involved in the laboratory experiment upstairs are not the only rats in the facility that will become the altered species. Professor Schultz, a leading bio-researcher, has just determined that the addition of a new enzyme now enables his "hunt and destroy" formulation to regenerate for the length of time necessary to neutralize deadly cancer tumors. When three varying degrees of the new mixture are administered to three different rats and the rest poured down the faulty "Waste Hazard" sink, shocking side-effects result in a night of terror.....right.....

Seriously, this is probably the worst film I've seen this year. Everything about it screams "Low-budget!", from the horrendous acting to the special effects which are some of the worst I've ever seen. The characters are cliched morons and act in stupid, predictable ways: walking down dark hallways alone, looking for a cat, tripping and falling so the "rats" can catch up with them, boarding themselves up in a small room, etc.

While some films are cheaply made, this film really takes the cake. Every possible corner is cut, everything from reusing earlier shots, filming the "Lab" hallways from different angles to make it look bigger (That reminds me--why were only TWO guys working in this freakin' massive building?!?!?!?), to music and special effects that could be done on a children's workshop PC.

That brings me to the worst aspect of this steaming pile of dung--the special effects. Just horrendous. The computer generated rats look so fake and stand out in every scene so even the dumbest of film buffs could see they are computer generated. And that giant rat suit--OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! seriously, are we supposed to believe that freaking beany baby is a monster? Just pitiful........On the better side, some of the gore looks pretty cool, especially considering the budget.

The actors all suck. no one involved with the production cared or knew what they were doing. I've wasted enough time with review, just take my advice, it's garbage. 1/10.

About the DVD: The transfer sucks, the audio is passable and there's a commentary track on the disk by the director and two of his friends, who say they had absolutely nothing to do with making the film but were there to ask questions and make comments. All three of these sub-human primordial slime are so incredibly stupid that they should be institutionalized before they can harm themselves or others. I don't want to waste any more of you kind reader's time or mine, for I am starting to remember more than I want to about this film..... DVD rating: 1/10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: War drama that takes place in Louisiana in 1971. It follows a bunch of recruits through basic training and then Tigerland--an accurate portrayal of Vietnam on American soil, before they're shipped over. It focuses on two men--Booz (Colin Farrell) and Paxton (Matthew Davis)...how they meet, become friends and deal with a corwardly squadron leader (Clifton Collins Jr.) and a borderline psycho (Shea Wingham).

A surprisingly non-commercial film directed by Joel Schumacher. He uses a hand-held camera throughout most of the movie and uses digital video for the combat scenes. It works very well--the film looks gritty (as it should) and uncomfortably realistic.

Farrell successfully covers up his Irish brogue and adopts a pretty convincing Southern accent. His performance is just superb--he's an extremely talented young man. Davis, unfortunately, is not that good. He's tall, muscular, very handsome--and very bland. The rest of the cast however is just great.

This film was thrown away by its studio. It had no stars in it, a familar story and was considered "just another war film". It only played a week in Boston! It's well worth catching on video or DVD.

Also, Farrell and Davis have a lengthy nude scene.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended.