Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.

I was wrong.

Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.

Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.

The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.

The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.

I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.

Better luck next time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.

Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.

Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.

It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is pretty much the first Jason Scott Lee film I've seen. I say pretty much, because I have also seen Soldier, in which he plays the villain... but from what I've heard, it's not considered a Jason Scott Lee film. This, however, is. And if this is any indication of the quality of such films, I won't be seeing any of the others. Lee is basically passable as a martial arts artist... as the lead, he's awful. He gets in a fight with random no-name characters every few minutes of the film, probably because the script writer couldn't figure out how else to stretch out the film to the minimum required running time for a feature film. The villain is the only character with even a hint of personality, and aside from the fact that he's certifiably insane, he barely seems like a villain at all. The majority of the film is basically Lee chasing the villain through time... or maybe it's the other way around. I can't say for sure... and I definitely wouldn't watch it again to make sure. The effects are not completely horrible... but it's close. The title comes from the popular idea of using a time-machine to go and kill Hitler. Somehow, the film screws up that interesting idea as well. The plot is too complicated for its own good. The pacing is poor. I can't think of one positive thing to say about this film... I really can't. It's simply too formulaic and pointless. If only I had a time-machine, so I could go back and prevent this film from ever being made... no, never mind. I just hope as few fragile minds are exposed to this as possible. Listen to the negative reviewers. Avoid this turkey. I recommend this to fans of Lee, and no one else. If you're looking for a quality film... well, this isn't it. That's for sure. 1/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
A man brings his new wife to his home where his former wife died of an "accident". His new wife has just been released from an institution and is also VERY rich! All of the sudden she starts hearing noises and seeing skulls all over the place. Is she going crazy again or is the first wife coming back from the dead?

You've probably guessed the ending so I won't spell it out. I saw this many times on Saturday afternoon TV as a kid. Back then, I liked it but I WAS young. Seeing it now I realize how bad it is. It's horribly acted, badly written, very dull (even at an hour) and has a huge cast of FIVE people (one being the director)! Still it does have some good things about it.

The music is kinda creepy and the setting itself with the huge empty house and pond nearby is nicely atmospheric. There also are a few scary moments (I jumped a little when she saw the first skull) and a somewhat effective ending. All in all it's definitely NOT a good movie...but not a total disaster either. It does have a small cult following. I give it a 2.

Also try to avoid the Elite DVD Drive-in edition of it (it's paired with "Attack of the Giant Leeches"). It's in TERRIBLE shape with jumps and scratches all over. It didn't even look this bad on TV!