Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Yeah i saw the rough cuts. The unedited sex scenes. The dire cut scenes. Almost on a par with the film 'The Need' for awful acting. This movie is as bad as bad films get.the bad script, bad acting, bad effects, bad locations, bad stunts bad everything. The best 'actors' in the film were the lap dancers they hired for the vampire extras!

Sean Harry, the 'foppish actor' as someone else put it, makes a matchstick look talented here. His amazing ability to badly drive a car, when it is obviously being shook by people on the bonnet (check out the reflection in the windscreen), his inability to turn left, which is class. OH and don't forget the sex scene. plus his noteworthy use of a toy gun which the props guys couldn't even be bothered to disguise as a real gun. The other actors on screen could barely deliver their lines.It was as if half the time they were waiting for a line that wasn't there!

The 'special effects' were soooo good to the point that the guys who did it took their real names off the credits!

If you want a laugh at a party then rent this movie...then again there are plenty of good comedies that are just as funny and don't give money to people who don't deserve it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The Sunshine Boys is one of my favorite feel good movies. I first saw it when it as the Christmas attraction at Radio City Music Hall when it first came out and loved it ever since. I ended up seeing it 6 times in the theaters, and if it was playing today I'd go out to see it again.

Now a lot of the reviews here mentioned the wonderful performances of the leads. Matthau was brilliant, but had the misfortune of being nominated against Jack Nicholson's Oscar winning performance of Randall P. MacMurphy in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. Burns did win, though Richard Benjiman deserved at least to be nominated as well. Even the smallest roles were played to perfection, like Fritz Feld auditioning for the potato chips commercial.

Which brings me to my reason for reviewing this film, the direction of the greatly underrated Herbert Ross. Ross who previously brought a two person play, "The Owl And The Pussycat" to the screen and made a full movie out of it, does it again. He opens the plays out without making them look like a photographic stage play. He fleashens out the story and the characters.

Here we're 20 minutes into the film before we get to the scene that opens the play, where Ben Clark comes to see his uncle and tell him about the comedy special. Though there are dialogue from the play during the first twenty minutes, the sequence itself is totally new. A few years ago I did see at the broadway revival of the play with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, which was wonderful. But I think that Ross and screenwriter, playwright Simon improved on it. It's just a wonderful film.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
"Addictive" is an adjective I've heard many times when talking of certain TV shows. Most recently, dramas like Lost, Heroes and Prison Break have earned that description. However, as compelling as they may be (and they really are) I can wait a few days before I see the next episode of either series, even Prison Break which some have lazily classified as "the new 24". With all due respect, there can be no such thing, and for a good reason: no other silver-screen thriller is based on a real-time structure. That's what sets 24 apart from any other show, and that's why I practically have to watch an entire season (on DVD) in seven days or less: once the frickin' clock starts ticking, it's impossible to tune out.

An episode whose events unfolded over the course of a single day was a trademark of NYPD Blue (and, more recently, Deadwood); having an entire season of a new series last 24 hours, one per ep (the actual running time is 41 minutes; the remaining 19 are occupied by commercials when the show airs on telly), was the most groundbreaking idea in mainstream television since Hill Street Blues introduced non-linear storytelling (a mandatory element nowadays). And it truly paid off.

Ironically enough, the original plan for the series was to make it revolve around a wedding (fortunately, creators Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran realized the format was more suitable for a conspiracy thriller), which is probably the reason the first glimpse we get of the hero suggests a cheerful atmosphere: looking extremely relaxed, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is enjoying a game of chess with his daughter Kimberly (Elisha Cuthbert) and, minutes later, being tender with Teri (Leslie Hope), the wife with whom he has just reconciled. As in The Sopranos, though, something unexpected and shocking is just behind the corner: not only has Kim snuck out of her room, Jack also receives a phone call urging him to get to work immediately. At midnight? I'm afraid so: Bauer is a CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) agent, and his boss has acquired reliable intel about a possible hit on the life of David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert), an African-American Presidential candidate who will be in Los Angeles for the whole day (oh, right, I almost forgot: events occur on the day of the California Presidential Primary). No time for napping, then: Jack has to spend the next 24 hours working on the case. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to ignore protocol, and that doesn't sit well with George Mason (Xander Berkeley), a slimy man from Division who has been asked to interfere with the operation.

The plot is very dense, making the show hard to recommend for those with a short attention span, but anyone willing to take a look will be rewarded instantly: the writing is sharp and precise, the attention to detail unsurpassed, and the suspense is consistently sky-high, mainly thanks to the real-time trickery which considerably enhances the adrenaline level.

Another great quality of this pilot is the characterization: most genre shows (sci-fi and thriller) tend to simply introduce the key players and then define them later on (a textbook example is CSI, where character development is minimal, but then again that matches the show's unique style), whereas the series debut of 24 offers a rich array of fully rounded people, among whom Jack (Sutherland's best role - ever!) and Palmer (the real revelation of the show) stand out for being perfectly described after one episode only (the former divided between job and family, reckless but humane, the latter honorable and endowed with great integrity). A couple of supporting parts border on stereotype (Mason and Tony Almeida especially), but two factors ought to be taken into account: a) this is the first episode; b) there's so much going on most viewers won't even complain about a "flaw" or two. After all, how many network programs manage to begin with a conspiracy, a missing teenager AND a huge explosion - and still have equally satisfying material for the rest of the season?

Tick, tock, tick, tock...