Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This was, undoubtedly, the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen. The first part of the movie, though strange, has a light and amusing quality to it. The journey begins on such a peaceful note, detailing and emphasizing the beauty of the hills of Appalachia. But that is misleading beyond belief. The obvious social problems (inbreeding) and the deformities of the countryside's inhabitants are only the first disturbing aspects of the movie. I can still hear Bobby moaning in pain, and I shudder at the thought. Lewis's leg made me wince. Yet, while the movie was, on the whole, very disturbing and distressing, it posed some interesting questions. When is it moral, or right to take another individual's life? What can morality drive us to do, or not do, in some cases? And are dignity and moral integrity more important than life itself? Whatever conclusions one may draw from the film, it is an achievement in its own right (despite certain aspects that were chillingly real and gruesome).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Too bad neither the animals or Eddie Murphy had anything to say worth saying. this movie is just bland.

Children's movie? Well, if you're trying to get them to take a nap, then maybe. It's just 90 minutes of some eye-wrenchingly poor animal lip animation to quips that aren't funny. And the lip-sync'ing makes the old Godzilla films look brilliantly done by comparison. Meanwhile, Eddie "Pluto Nash" Murphy drones on with a suppressed understated delivery that is painful to experience. Apparently, he's trying to modify his old manic persona, but to what? In short, all the magic and wonder of the 1967 original version is lost in this re-imagining, or whatever it is. A town wants to bully some forest creatures and blame them for doing bad stuff. No, really. And Pluto Nash can psycho-babble with them. Things chain along with some stale jokes to a dull uninspired conclusion with no surprises.

Rent the '67 movie. Or some old Yogi Bear cartoons.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: For all of you that don't speak swedish: The swedish [original] title of this film; "Ranarna" translates into something in the line of "The Robbers". This fact is the main problem I have with the film, cause it's not really about the robbers at all. It's about a young woman working for the swedish police researching robberies. A regular desk job one would think, but this girl is soon out on the field taking matters into her own hands, as the story goes, even shooting one of the robbers... Exactly: We've seen this before. The fact that there's a rather interesting twist to the plot halfway through doesn't really help as the ending is just as cliche as the first two thirds of the film.

What saves it from being just another mainstream film is the fact that it's masterfully executed in all ways, that the actors are as great as they are and don't overact and that the director really manages to keep it as thrillingly exciting as it is for the most of the story.

One thing that I really loved about this film is the fact that it's music sets the right mood when it's needed, but is absent for the rest of the time, which gives a nice sense of reality to the shootouts and car-chases spread throughout the film. A nice touch! The fact that Michael Persbrandt is one of the few swedish actors that often tend to get typecasted sadly hurts the film as you know that he's not going to just play the boyfriend of the heroine and be a supporting character in the background, but that's something you have to neglect.

All in all it's an entertaining film that steals more money in it's plot than time from you. 7/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: You'd be forgiven to think a Finnish director from Helsinki would be no good at directing an American horror movie (especially one entirely located inside a US prison) - see this to prove yourself wrong! It was produced in the 80's after all and the film was made on a budget more fitting to a modern DIY company TV advert (something I think anyone would really notice nowadays what with practically everyone being accustomed to $100m+ budgets for action movies unfortunately dominating the industry mind!) being Mr Harlin's first major production and the - at least what nowadays would be considered a stellar - cast. I still think most of the Nordic contribution to the film industry as a whole is more to do with Stellan Stargaard's screen appearances (not mentioning the well overrated Mr(s) Bergman directorial efforts) - at least for all female viewers - but this flick really proves there does exist proper movie talent outside of the US and Hollywood to make us watch a film in suspense. Do try and watch this movie even if you're not a horror puff, IMO it's definitely worth it!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.

And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.

And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.

I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie.

Can anybody tell me where the 200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?

I am so disappointed it hurts.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
OK, I love bad horror. I especially love horror bad enough to make fun of. Demonicus, or House of the Dead - those were bad enough to make fun of. Severed was not.

It was worse.

(spoilers - who cares?)

My friend and I sat through the entire film, and I have a number of comments, both in the "this sucks" style and in the realm of actual critiques.

Plot (sort of) - There's a guy in this city (which is possibly Seattle, see comment below) who is running around and cutting off heads. He's been doing this for over a year (I'm not going back to get exact numbers - thank you VERY much), possibly two or three years. One head a week. And the police are JUST NOW calling in a "specialist" (who ONCE refers to himself as a psychic, but that never comes up again).

Schya right! Feds take over after, what, THREE connected homicides? After NEARLY A HUNDRED SIMILAR KILLINGS we'd be under freaking martial law!!!!!

Anyway, this "specialist" consults the voodoo chick who the police have been ignoring the entire time, and the two of them come to the conclusion that it's Baron Samedi, a voodoo spirit, who is cutting off heads to gain enough power to make himself a body (and then presumably take over the world - or possibly just go to Disneyland).

Um.

Setting - where IS this happening? Well, if you're not from Seattle, you might not realize that at the bar/rave (occupied by about ten of the movie staff and their family members), there's a poster for a local radio station, and that in the highly-entertaining, "Pulp Fiction"esqe dialog (as IF) between the two cops (yes, the ones who get their heads cut off about 15 minutes into the flick) they discuss "the new stadium" which may still have been an issue when this movie was made.

Being from Seattle, I apologize on the movie's behalf and hang my head in shame.

OK, here's where it gets really critical - being a horror movie writer (not published, don't go looking for my name in the IMDb), I do research. Lots of research. And unlike the writers of this movie, I know that Baron Samedi - while a Voudon Loa (spirit) who guards the graveyards and has traditionally been associated (by various Christian oppressors) with "Satan" - is actually a "Loki"-like trickster god.

In other words, he doesn't cut off heads.

Besides, a major part of the Voudoun religion is that Baron Samedi can have a body whenever he wants. Their religious ceremonies center around the possession of various members of the congregation by the loa.

Not to mention, if he's already possessed someone, why make a NEW body?

Also, if Baron Samedi GOT a body, he wouldn't go around cutting off heads, he'd get some good rum and cigars and par-TAY!!!

In summary, the only thing they did get (surprisingly) right is that in the completely unnecessary Tarot card reading (used only to show that the voodoo chick is "spooky") they didn't screw up the interpretations of the cards the way most movies do. Again, I've done research. (Anyone remember the old late-night ad for phone-in tarot readings - "The lovers - you will soon fall madly in love..." and all that nonsense?)

If you made it this far through my comments, I congratulate you. And I'm sorry again. I'll be more sorry if you feel the need to watch the film on account of me, so please don't.