Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: **MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Superficically, "Brigadoon" is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind "An American in Paris", are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior "It's Always Fair Weather" this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as "My Fair Lady" and Minnelli's musical masterpiece "Gigi"; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent "American in Paris."

What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.

While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like "Cabin in the Sky" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of "Yolanda and the Thief" or "The Pirate" because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally "good" pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.

At one point we're assured that "everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon." Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in "Yolanda and the Thief." Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in "AIP"), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: First, nobody can understand why this movie is rated so poorly. Not only is this the first real horrific movie since a very long time for me who am pretty hard-boiled with a decades long experience of horror starting with driving through dark rides (ghost trains) as a child. Second, the main actress Cheri Christian has a face that lets you hope she will be the leading actress in major pictures of the future. Third, this woman is that tremendously beautiful that I suggest the directors retire all those Cameron Diazes, Eva Mendezes, and how ever the names of these ephemeral bulb-lights are. Mrs. Christian is not a light, but a sun.

However, "Dark remains" is also of considerable metaphysical importance. They idea that photographs shows creatures of the intermediary reign between reality and "imagination" that are not visible with one' own eyes is not new. But I have never seen in a movie before that those creatures are visible on the photographs only for certain people and only to certain times. This means that the photo is not just an iconic picture of reality (by which reality turns into a sign), but becomes an alternative form of reality which can change as the "real" reality can. Being a sign, the changing of the picture means that it influences the photographed objects, i.e. the sign behaves like an object. Now, in our usual world of perception, it is common that objects change signs. F.ex., if someone grows a bird, his photograph will show him with beard, not without, as it did before. But the opposite, the changing of objects by signs would imply that the photo with beard is first and only then the beard grows on the man. This is, very simply expressed, the case that happen with the photos taken by the main character in the prison, in this movie. This is new, and we must be thankful for everything new in horror movies which usually just repeat and reorder effects and features that are already well-known, mostly since the silent time.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Some unrealistic movie spoilers included.

From real life experiences, this movie continued to disappoint from the very beginning. I'm currently deployed on my second tour to Iraq as an infantry man. This film has nothing near what would happen in real life occurrences. From the very start to name a few: the bomb cart, the EOD elements rolling out solo with no escorts, the EOD staff sergeant sneaking of VBC, having sleeves rolled the entire time in ACUs, to where i had to call it quits on my 2 dollar haji copy, the sniper scene. The list would continue, however, it is unnecessary to list things wrong happening with a time span of 2 minutes before more things were incorrect; and the point was made.

This movie is for people and critics to watch that have no understanding or experience with deployments or the military.

People with military background or knowledge of the military will be disappointed with the inaccuracy.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
The 1983 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This "Jane Eyre" even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book).

The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in "Scarlet", and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...)

Some people say that this "Jane Eyre" is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough "kissing scenes". I hate when they make Jane Eyre some "Hollywood movie" with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include "crazy, madly in love" scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as "boring and old-fashioned". But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book.

I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton!