Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.

I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).

The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated cliches (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.

But we liked the maggots.

So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.

This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.

Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant "Bruck-buster" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me!

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).

I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).

Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).

I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).