Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: With this movie being the only Dirty Harry movie which Clint Eastwood not only stars, but produces and directs as well, you know it's got to be good. Although some say that The Enforcer is the best out of the series, I completely disagree. In my opinion, apart from the original Dirty Harry, Sudden Impact and Magnum Force are the only two worthy of being in the series. Although The Enforcer is an alright film with a couple of good action sequences, it doesn't get the dirty and gritty impact that the other three films do. This film captures all the excitement that makes a Clint Eastwood film good, and it's got the quotes that make a Dirty Harry film good. In Diry Harry it's "..Well do ya, punk?"; in Magnum Force "A man's got to know his limitations" ; and in this it's "Go ahead. Make my day." Also in this film it's nice to see a change of scenery, as you get a bit tired of seeing the same old San Fransisco streets in the other films in the series. With great acting by Clint Eastwood and co-star Sandra Locke, and good directing by Clint, this is in my opinion the best Dirty Harry sequel ever.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Tears of Kali is an original yet flawed horror film that delves into the doings of a cult group in India comprised of German psychologists who have learned how to control their wills and their bodies to the point that they can cause others to be "healed" through radical techniques (that can trigger nightmarish hallucinations and physical pain and torture) to release the pent-up demons inside them.

The film is shown as a series of vignettes about the Taylor-Eriksson group--the above-mentioned cult group. The first segment is somewhat slower than the rest but serves fine to set up the premise for the rest of the film. The rest of it plays out like a mindf@ck film with some of the key staples thrown in the mix (full-frontal nudity, some gore) to keep you happy.

I say check this out. May not be spectacular, but it's concept is pretty neato and it delivers in the right spots. 8/10.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.

I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.

Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.

I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.

The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.

Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Pendragon Pictures' new film "H G Wells' War of the Worlds", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's version, which hits theatres June 29.

I liked this film, with certain reservations.

How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.

Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for "real" seem to be those in open fields or forests.

But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.

The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.

I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.

A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.

Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing? If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.

BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds (aka "INVASION") came out on DVD the same month that Spielberg's hit the theatres: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film - but it's much better! And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007.