Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I just love Malle's documentaries. They are so effortless and simple but still so fascinating. I have no idea why this documentary works. It is about Glencoe, Minnesota. 5000 people live there and nothing happens, really. But still Malle manages to make it fascinating and interesting. His love for humanity, even racist or homophobic people, is so overwhelming that you just can't help but also to fall in love with them too.

Malle filmed most of it in 1979. He came back 6 years later to see what had changed. This would have been a good film without the material 6 years later but this small addition makes it great. It may sound like Malle was just doing what has been done in the Up series but in fact it is not. The Up series are about people. Malle's emphasis is not so much on what happened to each person but what has happened to this community. And the change is great. 1985 is the Reagan era and the farmers are suffering. Once a proud community, now no one sees much future at all and parents hope their children will educate them self and do something else than farming.

This documentary is quite relevant today. Our financial crises today started because of what was happening then. Just take a look to these final words in the film, spoken by an older lawyer from the town (in 1985):

"Well I have high hopes for this country because the things that are going on right now can only be characterized in my mind as an obsession with greed. And a nation doesn't live long with that obsession. And particularly a democracy that... There's good - there's good - a lot of good in this country and a lot of good people and they aren't gonna - they aren't gonna subscribe to this philosophy of greed that's going on now. It's horrible."

Unfortunately it took more than 20 years and a hell of a headache before that happened.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Pop quiz: you're a part of the modern armed forces in peacetime on routine manoeuvres and you find yourself thrown back in time with a chance to change history. What do you do? Well, if you're a Hollywood studio, you change the Japanese G.I.s in G.I. Samurai (aka Timeslip) to the crew of an American aircraft carrier, have them debate stopping the attack on Pearl Harbour for 90 minutes and then go home and hope that no-one reminds you that Japan did it first and with more balls in 1979 with this Sonny Chiba movie. But unlike its Hollywood counterpart The Final Countdown, this sees its premise through: thrown back 400 years into the Japanese feudal wars, its peacetime soldiers decide that their best hope of getting back lies in provoking history by trying to change it by joining with a warlord to conquer the country cue lots of tank and helicopter vs. samurai action, including a very impressive unrelenting 25 minute battle sequence featuring a cast of thousands inflicting serious damage on each other. And yes, there are decapitations.

Of course, things don't go as planned, and even superior firepower doesn't stand up as well as hoped to thousands of soldiers. Even before that, the soldiers are falling out with each other into those who want to go home, those who want to go to war and those who want to rape and pillage for the Hell of it. Impressively directed and surprisingly well thought through, the soft rock and country and western songs are sometimes a distraction, especially when they feature English lyrics sung by Japanese singers who audibly can't pronounce the words let alone speak the language, but it's a forgivable flaw in a surprisingly good sci-fi actioner.

Optimum's UK DVD is a good transfer of the uncut 138-minute version.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is light, funny, and beautifully filmed. The lightning is absolutely superb, and the colours convincingly remind Vermeer paintings.

This is sentimental comedy at its best, way above US and French standards, and arguably better than English ones too.

Every character is touching, and interpretation is close to perfection. Isabelle Blais is splendid, Sylvie Moreau is better than in the Catherine series, Stephane Gagnon is charming, Emmanuel Bilodeau is great in that weird role of his, and Genevieve Laroche is the perfect best friend!

I could go on for hours before finding any negative comment on this movie, so give it a chance, and add your own review.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: OH MY GOD.. THE WORST SH*T I'VE EVER SEEN -this is the main thought which came into my mind right after watching the movie. And I really do not understand anybody with opposite myth. Though, maybe the idea was good but the effect miserable. I especially mean the role of H. Graham. What was that??? In my opinion it has destroyed all positive intentions of producers. The character was played in affected and annoying way. Every time she appears it reminds that you' re watching a movie and is destroying a spirit of the moment, then whole movie because the most time what you can see there are her stupid faces with more stupid attempts to create the emotion. TERRIBLE, don't waste your time.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: One of the more 'literate' Lone Stars, with time spent on character development and interaction, dialog and acting business. The opening scene sets the stage (literally) for the personalities of the gambler, Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler), and his buddy, John Scott (John Wayne) the rodeo (say Roh-Day-oh) star, both of whom are slightly randy. The film follows their adventures, as they try to best each other in the pursuit of the Mexican Juanita, and later in their pursuit of perky Mary Kornman, who has the inevitable evil brother (though he'd been led astray by the real villain, and wants to repent). And oh, of course, they're being wrongly accused of two crimes and have to serve jail time before escaping and being exonerated at the end.

The high point is Scott continually and deliberately ogling Mary's butt in her grocery store, and knocking away the ladder she's standing on so he can catch her and grab her as she falls. It all seems a little contemporary for a 30s western, but it sounds better than it actually is.

Sadly, the exciting action elements we find in many other Lone Stars are sorely missing here. No Yakima Canutt. Cheap and bad uses of stock footage of riders falling off horses. No George Hayes. Tedious Stooge-like bi-play between Scott and Charlie, with Charlie swinging at Scott, Scott stomping on his foot and then punching him (repeated two more times!). The skilled Paul Fix is underused. Eddy Chandler himself, here in his big star turn, is not really believable as a randy side kick. The villain looks too old and fat. So does Chandler, who spent his later career in 300 more movies as an uncredited meatloaf. Mary Kornman, of the twenties "Our Gang" (see 'Mary, Queen of Tots' 1925) is cute in her scenes with John Wayne, but that's about it for this one. Seeds of a better western lie buried here.

P.S. The ultra-short colorized version, which looks good, moves along so fast, it's over if you blink more than once. Thankfully though, the embarrassing scenes with Eddy Chandler have been cut.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
May and her husband go to visit their children and grandchildren. The visit is awkward because the grandchildren and "kids" don't really seem to know each other as one might expect. The warmth that should be there is missing. After dinner, May's husband says he doesn't feel well, blames it on his daughter's cooking, and irritably says he wants to go home. He dies that night.

May, now a widow, is lost. She clearly did not have a passionate marriage or a very interesting one, but she had a purpose. She had someone who needed her, and even though her own needs had gone unmet for years, she had something to do with her days.

She is depressed and unmotivated. She goes to stay with her daughter, Paula, who shortly after her mother's arrival, lets her mother know that she has never felt that her mother has given much of herself at all. She lets loose with anger over her mother's lack of nurturing. May seems disarmed and surprised, yet she also doesn't seem to have the energy or the desire to really make it right. "I'm your mother and I love you." What does really say? (I've heard this from my own mother way too many times and have yet to figure out what it means.) Paula is a bit (well, more than a bit) neurotic. Both women are needy, though they show it very differently.

Paula has been involved with a friend of her son's, Darren, who is a handyman working on the house owned by her son. While Paula is working during the day, May begins to have conversations and lunches with Darren. Darren is a married man who has stayed with his wife because of their autistic son, Nicky, but supposedly doesn't live in the home with his wife.

May becomes attracted to Darren because he is virile and she enjoys the connection they seem to have. Darren becomes attracted to May because she offers a kind of peace and understanding that he does not get from the other women in his life. (He also becomes too interested in money that May says she can give him to "get away from it all," though he is clearly not interested in her desire to join him on such a journey. They end up sleeping together in the spare room during the day, and May enjoys fulfillment as a woman that she has not known in years, nor had ever expected to know again. As her daughter Paula had often told her that she would leave the married Darren, this becomes part of May's rationalization that what she is doing is okay.

At a writing group that Paula leads, May is introduced, rather forced to get together with a widower to whom she is not attracted. There is one scene where she has sex with the older man, who clearly can barely perform, and it truly painful and unsettling as we see the total disgust on May's face as she endures the one-time ghastly liaison.

Eventually, Paula discovers through some very graphic sketches done by her mother, that indeed her mother and Darren have been having sex.

This film will undoubtedly be seen by many in myriad ways. Sympathies will be divided. At one point, during Paula's writing group, May reveals through a short essay that she used to feel as though she hated her kids by the end of the day, and would leave for pubs after they were asleep, making sure to get back home before her husband.

Clearly, a good mother does not think of leaving children alone while she goes off to the local pub. May, however, also had revealed earlier in the film that her husband didn't like her having any friends, so she didn't have any. She did what he wanted her to do. She was miserable but she put up with it because, as she said, "it was easier." So, while May was not the best mother, for those inclined to have any sympathy for her, one might see May's actions as the act of a woman just wanting to be sexual and to be a live for "a few minutes" in her lifetime. A woman who just wanted someone to listen to her, to know her as a human being, to have a friend and a lover.

Paula, though neurotic and unhappy, perhaps has become that way because of the distant parents who raised her. Certainly, it is not difficult to understand why Paula feels completely betrayed by her mother.

It is a well-done film, with more complexities than I have mentioned, and certainly one that will leave the viewer with many, perhaps conflicting, reactions. It is a film worth discussing and debating, and above all, worth seeing.

One thing the film leaves us with is the horror and fear of a lonely life. No matter who is deemed "right" or who is deemed 'wrong" by each viewer, that theme of old age and loneliness, evoking a sense of dread in most of us, is inescapable.