Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw that when I was little and it was excellent. Kelsey White as Lisa and the Meecy Mices where cute. Susan Bonde as Doodle and Sandra Dee Heidecke as Snoodle where Hilarius. Karen Boettcher-Tate as Profster was interesting. Burl Ross as Little Bunny Foo Foo was funny. Gregory Donavon as Kaiso was brilliant. Whats Hilarius that Snoodle and Doodle eat too much candy. Whats sad that Little Bunny Foo Foo that bops the Meecy Mices on the head then by a fairy will give Little Bunny Foo Foo few wishes then he turns into goon. This story is about when Lisa, Snoodle, Doodle go to the Big Rock Candy Mountains. This show is excellent the kids will like this show, new words, songs, and watching them playing.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is one of my two or three favorite Stooges shorts, and undoubtedly Christine McIntyre's best performance with the trio. She is good in a number of other shorts, but here she is absolutely brilliant. Her singing is not funny at all, in fact it is downright beautiful, but the plot is constructed in such a way that the singing enhances the humor rather than detracting from it. We listen to McIntyre sing the entirety of Voice of Spring no less than three times, but it never gets old, partly because we don't tire of her voice, and partly because it blends so well with the Stooges' antics. The use of operatic soprano in a comedy is reminiscent of Kitty Carlisle's role in the Marx Brothers' "A Night At The Opera," but the singing is much more a part of the comedy here than in "Opera," and McIntyre (perhaps more in other performances than here) exhibited a comedic talent of her own that Carlisle never did. The Stooges' buffoonery, McIntyre's singing, and a well-constructed plot combine for 5 out of 5 stars.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.

I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.

So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.

I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.