Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself.

He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.

Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.

I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.

A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.

Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?

Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.

Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it!

Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ®️ after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.

Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.

I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
The Life and Time of Little Richard, as told by Little Richard, as produced and directed by Little Richard, was about as one sided as one of his songs. This is not a biography or even a docudrama, but does have good writing, great energy and an outstanding leading actor playing Richard. All the music is by Little Richard, so it rocks a tight lipsync on every song.

The movie covers his early childhood, carrys thru the formative years in music, the wild success and Richard's throwing it all away to praise the Lord. Its all tied together well and the obvious comeback in 1962 manages to stay away from the idea that Little Richard discovered the Beatles, whom opened for him.

My main objection is that his outrageous, counter cultural behavior is underplayed and you get no feel for how his audience experienced him at that time. Some of his energy, which he still has, does not come across full force. He seemed tame, compared to what I remember of him at the time.

The best scenes are Richard getting jilted by Lucille and writing a song about it and the strip to bikini shorts while performing, to make the point about not having a decent place to change.

If they had gotten into the "Bronze Liberace" as Richard use to refer to himself in interviews, then there's a story. Trust me I just saw him perform a couple of months ago and he still flirts with the pretty white boys, giving the one particularly good dancer in the audience, his headband. Nearly 68 and still going strong I recommend this movie and any concert or T.V. appearance you can find. Little Richard is always on