Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Seriously crappy movie.

First off, the movie starts with a cop and his partner parked outside of a warehouse/furniture store. The "bad" cop takes a girl, which they had pulled over, into the warehouse's attic, while the newbie cop sits outside and ponders what could be happening up there. The "bad" cop eventually returns with a heavy duffel bag, and the newbie cop doesn't think there are any problems, but he still wonders what was in the bag, so he asks, gets a bullshit response, and then he thinks everything is OK (for now).

The "bad" cop repeats this process, and even once with a tit scene (made it slightly better). But eventually people start to catch on, which took awhile considering how f***ing obvious it was. One girl gets a voodoo curse placed on her just in case she dies, like ya do. Now, the "bad" cop eventually kills this magically protected bitch, and then he gets rid of the duffel-bagged body.

Since she had the oogey-boogey magic put on her, she comes back with lots of eye-shadow on, which is supposed to indicate that she may be a zombie... also, the magic curse causes all of the other girls to become "eye-shadow monsters". Some of the girls meet up with a dude, who is apparently a currency specialist, and he offers them a ride (they look normal to him apparently). But when the girls see other people, such as the one girls husband, he freaks out because she is hideous (some people freak out, but others don't even notice).... massive plot hole.

So, to wrap it up, the eye-shadow monsters kill the "bad" cop, who in turn ends up becoming a zombie in the last scene. It was as though they were trying to prep us for a sequel! Like anyone would want to see part 2 of this cow dropping.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: My thoughts on the movie, 9

It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.

This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?

That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,

"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.

This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.

Okay... SPOILERS follow.

So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart.

The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.

The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2.

Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2.

They succeed.

#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.

The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots.

They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.

Hunh?!?

That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?

Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.

Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is how i felt while watching this film. I loved it. It was hilarious. But i did feel a like i was getting sneaky view into somebody's psyche and then laughing as it got twisted around to make an interesting point. A friend put it this way:

"I feel like we broke into somebody's house and are now watching their awful home videos without their knowledge".

Another one of those fact is stranger than fiction pieces of film. "Groovin' Gary", the original "Beaver Kid", is a small town guy who turns up at a nearby TV station in the hope of getting on film - and he certainly does, though not, perhaps, as he initially expected. With high hopes of fame and significance he invites Harris to come and film a truly awful talent quest that he has organised in his home town - headlined by his own drag act "Olivia Newton-Don".

Director, Trent Harris, does a brilliant job with this slowly evolving story. Some footage of an awkward kid who wants to be someone morphs, over two subsequent reinterpretations, into the story of freedom from repressed sexual identity in small town America. Harris simultaneously critiques the attitudes of small town America, the cult of celebrity, and the exploitative practices of the film and television industry.

Both Sean Penn and Grispin Glover pull out stunner performances. a young Sean Penn is the most evocative - so closely does he follow the actual 'Gary footage', but with strong nuances given to push the sense of the interaction the way Harris wants it to go.

In the end the wide-eyed naivety the original Gary is what moved me - when contrasted against these possible interpretations of his situation.

A film not to miss. I have not seen anything else like it.

Jacob.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. "The Lonely Lady" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you.