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

A: The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.

No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.

Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.

Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)

Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."

This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.

"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.

9/10.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???

And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).

The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.

Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).

Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.

Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The young lady's name is Bonnie (Polay). She's attractive, is apparently living a pretty decent life, but all of a sudden is inexplicably snatched from her home and life by Evil Dude and the Various and Sundry Evil Henchmen. Now she has no idea what the hell is going on, only that a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth people apparently want her dead...and she's going to die not even knowing why.

God, I hear the whining all the time. Now that content is so cheap to produce and people can create their own movies/books/comics/internal organs, there's going to be nobody to ensure that there's a standard of quality! We're going to be drowning in crap! The only people who actually think this are people who haven't watched any movies or read any books recently-- because we're already doing a dead man's float in crap. It's folks like Ferrari and Rodriguez who put the lie to these ignorant so-and-sos by throwing $8K on the table and making...well, what I would say is a better action flick than anything you've seen in cinemas this year...but you haven't seen any action flicks in the cinema this year. I've seen the box office. You're staying away in droves. You would do better to snag a copy of this, spend twenty minutes being entertained, and get on with your lives.

It's sheer entertainment. You enter, like Bonnie, with a lot of questions and where the whole thing ends up is nebulous. The whole conceit has been done before in multiple ways but not in such a compressed amount of time and not without such concentrated tasty gunplay. You're there for the atmosphere, the mystery, and the guns. That's it--that's all the filmmakers promise, and they deliver.

It warms the black pits of my heart to think this was made on such a budget. We get passed a goodly number of indie films around here, but seldom do we see anything as polished as this short is, and we've never seen one done in the action genre that looked this good. Hell, you could hand these two guys MI: 3 and it might draw me into watch it. The Bond franchise. Hell, anything. No, in fact, better yet: I'd like to see these guys make a feature on their own and stay the hell away from Hollywood. Whatever's out there killing the movie industry is no doubt infectious.

Best indie we've seen in a while and the most effective indie calling card we've ever seen. The DVD's $20 and has bonus features out the ass. Go take your movie ticket budget and put it towards this instead.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.

Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.

In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...

A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.

As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top?

It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.

My grade: D-