Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Hood of the Living Dead and all of the other movies these guys directed look like they got together and filmed this with their buddies who have zero talent one afternoon when they were bored (lines are completely unrehearsed and unconvincing). I find that 95% of amateur movies and 90% of home video footage is better than this film (although the similarities between them warrant the comparison). "Hey lets see if anyone is dumb enough to buy our movies!". Hopefully nobody ELSE wasn't. My apologies to those involved in the flic as this review is somewhat harsh but i was the dope who read your fake reviews and purchased the movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: If you're a fan of film noir and think they don't make 'em like they used to, here is your answer -they just don't make 'em in Hollywood anymore. We must turn to the French to remember how satisfying, subtle and terrific a well-made film from that genre can be. Read My Lips is a wonderfully nasty little gift to the faithful from director Jacques Audiard, featuring sharp storytelling and fine performances from Emmanuelle Devos and Vincent Cassel.

The basic plot could have been written in the 40's: dumb but appealing ex-con and a smart but dowdy femme fatale (who turns out to be ruthlessly ambitious) discover each other while living lives of bleak desperation and longing, manipulate each other to meet their own ends, develop complex love/hate relationship, cook up criminal scheme involving heist, double crosses, close calls and lots of money. All action takes place in depressing, seedy and/or poorly lit locations.

Audiard has fashioned some modern twists, of course. The femme fatale is an underappreciated office worker who happens to be nearly deaf and uses her lip reading ability to take revenge on those who marginalize her. And where you might expect steamy love scenes you discover that both characters are sexually awkward and immature. Add in a bit of modern technology and music and it seems like a contemporary film, but make no mistake - this is old school film noir. It's as good as any film from the genre and easily one of the best films I've seen all year.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: " Domino " has been widely condemned on this site for its frenetic editing style and " sickening " photography. It's detractors cite its superficiality and criticize its deployment of " style over substance" I couldn't disagree more. I believe that " Domino " represents the absolute height of Tony Scott's film-making career.

After having created the dominant Hollywood action movie style throughout the late eighties and early nineties Tony Scott has moved progressively closer to a more subjective style of cinema. As early as "Crimson Tide" Scott used his stylistic talent to portray the inner worlds of his characters- the claustrophobia and drama inherent in the conflict on board a nuclear submarine was embodied in the excellent use of long lenses combined with dutched-angle framing. This was then carried through to " Enemy Of The State" and "Spy Game" which visually represented the worlds of surveillance and espionage respectively.

" Man On Fire" was an extreme departure , a move into an expressionist more painterly aesthetic. Here Scott used an antiquated hand cranked camera and flash frames to express his character's explosive rage . Although not entirely successful it introduced the techniques which were to find their full expression in " Domino"

Couched in the framing device of an FBI interrogation " Domino" presents the life of the infamous bounty hunter via her narrated disjointed fragments of memory. She grasps at memories as we all do- in fragments, flashes and brief snatches. As Domino relays her story verbally Scott relays it visually illustrating not only the events which she describes but also the point of view which guides them. She does have " traces of mescaline" in her system but her individual vision is anyway Unusual -that of an woman who eschewed the life of luxury for bounty hunting.

It is when Domino begins to relate the events which lead to her captivity that Scott really lets rip. Together with Cinematographer Dan Mindel and composer Harry-Gregson Williams Scott orchestrates a postmodern canvas of contemporary Americana. Gradually we begin to realize that unusual though she may be Domino is no more disjointed than the "90210" culture she has rejected. As she wades through this cultural melange Scott makes his viewer more aware of the innocence which it destroys through the underprivileged children which the narrative introduces. Ultimately Scott portrays their salvation as the only escape we have from this surreal trip.

To criticize this movie for being overly stylized is akin to criticizing a Picasso or a Pollock for not representing that which is recognizably human. Like any great painting the meaning in " Domino" is in the surface and the surface is everything.

I am not in any way associated with Scott Free but have always been and will continue to be a huge admirer of Tony Scott's work
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.

Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.

Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.

Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.

Finally, there's the "ghost" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.

All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID.