Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A most awaited film of the year 2002. After three and half years of hibernation,Rajini has acted in this movie. The hype for this film was toooooo high..

This is not a typical Rajini film, in this film he gives some spiritual messages also. But it also includes typical Rajini actions,style,songs etc. Its a good entertaining movie and gives good messages also.

I will rate this movie as Good instead of Excellent because of the screenplay. Its a must watch movie. Dont miss it!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.

I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.

The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.

And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.

Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.

And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).

Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.

See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling

PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I just saw this film last night at Toronto Film Festival where it was playing under the Midnight Madness section. To tell you the truth, the only reason why I went for this movie was because it shared its name with the Radiohead song, and also because my friend had bought the tickets so I really didn't have a choice :-D I went in expecting it to be something like The Silence of the Lambs, but it turned out to be semi-gore flick. Somebody has already mentioned that none of the characters are likable, and that is absolutely correct. I really couldn't care less if Potente's character got her entrails ripped out by the Creep. I was rooting for the homeless to make it out alive with Potente's character getting her just desserts. Christopher Smith has certainly done a great job with the visual aspect of the film. However, the story is rather weak, but then again the whole point of the movie was to scare the crap out of you and it did that quite effectively. The score by a Bristol band called The Insects was top notch. That, more than anything else, really scared the crap out of me.

The director was a really decent chap and was quite entertaining during the Q&A session. I really do hope he gets to make better films in the future.

This one is strictly for genre fans, but I'd recommend non-fans to give this a try anyway. It was a fun ride.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo "killing fields" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
I've heard nothing but great things about the 2006 television mini-series, "Planet Earth," narrated by my childhood idol David Attenborough. Nevertheless, whether it was screened down here in Australia or not, I never caught up with it, and when I happened upon the opportunity to see 'Earth (2007)' a feature-length compilation of the same nature footage on the big screen, I jumped at the chance. The theatre was basically empty; just one other patron sat in the row ahead of me, and it was as though I had, not only the big screen to myself, but, indeed, the entire planet Earth. For 90 minutes, I was lowered into the beauty and perils of the isolated wilderness, amongst some of the most beautiful living creatures ever captured on film. Awesome in its scope, and yet painfully intimate at times, 'Earth' is a heartfelt plea from the filmmakers to recognise the delicate balance of life on our planet, and how the intrusion of humans has placed countless glorious animal and plant species on the brink of extinction.

Though the film, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, obviously argues for the conservation of the wilderness, it refrains from beating us over the head with propaganda, and the puzzle that is politics is ignored altogether; indeed, there is not a human in sight. Instead, we are simply taken on a breathtaking journey into the majesty of the natural world, to experience the resilience, and also the fragility, of life on Earth. I hear that the original mini-series, which ran for eleven episodes, delves a lot deeper into the scientific background of world ecosystems, but I think that, here, the filmmakers made a wise decision to replace information with emotional impact: I can't remember the last time that I felt so inspired, and yet utterly heartbroken at the same time. By establishing an emotional link between the audience and a select few individual animals, anthropomorphising them to an extent, we are suddenly able to appreciate the "human side" of each species, and their hopeless plight for survival becomes less a statistic and more an unacceptable tragedy.

'Earth' is basically comprised of a selection of dramatic episodes, whether it be the struggles of a female polar bear to lead her young cubs to the Arctic ice, or the tramp of an elephant herd towards the life-saving seasonal floodwaters of the Okavango Delta. The documentary demonstrates the delicate balance between life and death, most heartbreakingly exhibited in the desperate ballet of predator-prey interactions. Though occasionally, perhaps to cater towards a younger audience, the footage cuts itself short at the crucial moment, I regularly shed at tear at the inevitability of death in nature, and the raw instinct that fuels these animals' final, hopeless efforts at survival. There's even a haunting beauty to be found in the hunt, both in the slow-motion footage of a cheetah bringing down its prey {the result of a single fateful misstep}, or the majestic mid-air leap of a Great White Shark as it engulfs a hapless sea lion. It is this frail balance that has been fatally disrupted by the selfishness of our own species.

Aside from these main stories, we are also treated to brief snippets of wildlife from around the world, including the birds of paradise of Papua New Guinea, and the autumn migration of the demoiselle cranes. Of course, entire films might have been dedicated to these species alone, and an inevitable consequence of having to sift through so much footage is that some interesting ecosystems are glossed over far took quickly. By choosing to focus most closely on the polar bear, elephant and humpback whale tracing their lifestyles, via some astonishing high-definition time-lapse photography, throughout a calender year the filmmakers were able to avoid any structural problems that might arise from having so much to show, and only 90 minutes to show it. Consequently, 'Earth' left me thirsting for more, and, fortunately, I now have approximately eleven hours more, as soon as I can track down a copy of the DVD box-set for "Planet Earth." Uplifting and tear-jerking, awe-inspiring and heartrending, 'Earth' is a truly magnificent documentary experience, and it might just be my favourite film of 2007.