An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Despite the other comments listed here, this is probably the best Dirty Harry movie made; a film that reflects -- for better or worse -- the country's socio-political feelings during the Reagan glory years of the early '80's. It's also a kickass action movie.

Opening with a liberal, female judge overturning a murder case due to lack of tangible evidence and then going straight into the coffee shop encounter with several unfortunate hoodlums (the scene which prompts the famous, "Go ahead, make my day" line), "Sudden Impact" is one non-stop roller coaster of an action film. The first time you get to catch your breath is when the troublesome Inspector Callahan is sent away to a nearby city to investigate the background of a murdered hood. It gets only better from there with an over-the-top group of grotesque thugs for Callahan to deal with along with a sherriff with a mysterious past. Superb direction and photography and a at-times hilarious script help make this film one of the best of the '80's.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: First it was Jack The Ripper, now it is Alan Feinstone. The crazy dentist tortures people in horrific ways. Quite realistic at times but some of the acting is abysmal and comical. Especially from Corbin Bernson. In some scenes there is dental torture that will really make you cringe.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."

It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience.

The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.

Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech."

The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I watched 'Envy' two nights ago, on DVD, at a friends house. The premise of this film is quite promising, Jack Black and Ben Stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential, but it completely fails to deliver. I watched it with about five friends and no-one laughed for the entire film. The jokes (which are few and far between) are NOT funny in any way... the story line is crap, and they never answer the question... WHERE DOES THE SH*T GO? Of course the answer to that is NO ONE CARES. This film lacks any sort of comedy value, and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is Christopher Walken as the J-man. None of the characters are developed, the plots so thin it's nearly transparent - and is that song throughout the film supposed to be funny??
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This is one of the greatest films ever made. It's an all-time classic. The character played by Ned Beatty undergoes one of the greatest on screen transformations ever portrayed. He is a shallow, almost useless, overweight insurance salesman. He is proud of his ignorance, and yet judges the "backwards hicks" to be the ignorant ones. When he compliments the old man on his hat, and the old man responds, "you don't know nothing'," the tone is set. It's true. He really doesn't "know nothing'." But one backwoods anal rape later, the man is practically a warrior. His shallow fake bravery is toned down into serious resolve. The old self is forever dead, left in some far off woods, soon to be under hundreds of feet of water. And what of Lewis, our intrepid guide? Lewis is a philosopher/hunter/warrior, and he's just about nuts. Burt Reynolds proved himself as an actor way back in 1972 in this film, completely giving himself in to this wonderful role. Who wouldn't want to have a friend like Lewis if one was to venture into the dangers of a forgotten/soon to be left behind world like the one our hapless travelers find themselves in. This film speaks to us on so many levels. The story feels real. It works as a complete action/adventure, with wonderful cinematography, and deliberate, grinding pacing. It works as a bit of a horror film, with the danger and almost surrealism of the encounter with the vile rednecks who objectify their "sow" Ned Beatty. But it also works as an art film, using incredible amounts of symbolism to convey truths that go to our very core. I have seen this film at least fifty times, and every time it comes on, I find I have to watch it. You have to watch it quite a few times to even begin to comprehend it. This is one deep movie. This is one well-acted movie. And this is one hell of a story. I gave it a 10 out of 10, and put it in my 10 all time greatest films ever made, along with Schindler's List, Casablanca, Taxi Driver, and Sling Blade, among others. Movies that make you think. Movies that take you beyond having to think. Movies that use a STORY to make their point, without trying to preach to you. If you think you know Deliverance, you might, but again, you might not. It really is that good.