Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.

And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Sarafina was a fun movie, and some of the songs were really great. Sarafina was very entertaining. I don't normally like music things like this, but the singing was not lame like it looked like on the box. The movie was useful for learning about history because it was an interesting perspective of the Soweto rioting of 1976. It showed you things from the perspective of the students in the rioting and showed you that they were real characters. Because you got to see them as real characters this makes you like them more as an audience, and makes you more sympathetic to them as totally the victims of the white government, who you can not sympathise with. The singing of the students is correct because we know from accounts that the students in the riot were singing and dancing before it became violent. The clothing of the students in Sarafina is very similar to the clothing shown in photos from Soweto. They made the movie actually in Soweto, which is why it looks very accurate in many parts. All these things make the film more accurate for someone using it to learn about aparthied. As viewers we must be critical of the way the history of Apartheid was presented. As I said before, you become sympathetic to the students - this makes it potentially less reliable and objective. Also, it changes some of the details from other accounts. In Sarafina it turns to chaos when the policeman comes into their classroom and shoots the students. The police and army were very aggressive at Soweto, but this is probably an exaggerated event. The police and army did shoot students, but there is not evidence of them going into schools and executing people like this. The fighting was more in the streets and had looting and crime. This is done in the movie probably to make you feel more sorry for the school students. The movie would have been more useful if it had some different information about aparthied. The teacher was arrested for being against the government, and the mum goes to work in a white persons house. But there is not any information about the government and why they were doing it or any details about the racist policies and laws. -By George S, Chris and Finlay
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: First of all, this film is GLACIALLY slow-moving, and I can see most viewers losing patience with it altogether in the first thirty minutes.

The film's subject matter was one I think would form the basis of an excellent film; what was most lacking here was a plot that would advance the underlying themes.

It's unfortunate, because in the hands of a writer like (say) Lanford Wilson, I think symbolism like a mountain-lion invading a school campus could take on great, Tragic proportions without being heavy-handed.

I think, with a good script supporting the film, the same filmmaker, with the same tastes, and even with the same actors (who didn't really even get a chance to impress me), might have been able to present a meaningful and touching depiction of the pains and struggles that a boy goes through when he develops a powerful "crush" on an older boy that he admires.

However, I'm sorry to say that without this foundation, and armed with a vague, dull-witted, and vastly uninteresting script, without any sort of plot in sight, and lacking any sort of sensible structure (for example, after viewing it, I believe you will find that you cannot point to climactic scenes, and instead, will find yourself enumerating "well, maybe that scene, or that one, were climaxes...")--the result is 95 minutes of tedium.

Without a good plot, we never get terribly interested in any of the characters; their trials and difficulties are simply dull and boring.

Without a good plot, dramatic devices and surrealistic directorial liberties become puzzling and confusing rather than enhancements to the story-line. I never really could believe, for example, the creation of "Leah" and I think that most viewers would be utterly baffled by the conventional way in which her telephone calls were filmed.

As the film stands, I'm afraid it's one I cannot recommend at all. What I can never understand is why a film like THIS one isn't re-made by an enterprising film-maker...instead of all the mediocre remakes of films that were superlatively good in the first release! All it needs is a good script, written by good writers, and I think this film could be easily turned into an unforgettable classic about an aspect of male coming-of-age that is rarely treated in drama. All the elements that were so tedious and seemed so recherche in the film (the messages written on the boy's belly, the "Leah" scenes, the television-screen fantasies) could become rich if underpinned with a good STORYLINE.

I see in quite a few comments that people are talking of this film as somehow being about a "gay" subject, and I think that's mistaken. Obviously, the "crush" depicted is that of a newly pubescent boy on an older adolescent boy, but the character of Logan is far too young to have settled on any particular sexual choices, and, indeed, in his depicted masturbation fantasies, we see all sorts of stimuli, sexual and non-sexual, as we would expect in a very young boy like him. I believe "crushes" such as Logan's are common among male youths who grow up to have a decided preference for female sex-partners.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Honestly, this is easily in the top 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Partly, because it takes itself so seriously, as opposed to regular light hearted trash, this movies wants you to be emotionally involved, to feel for the characters, and to care about the alleged conspiracy. None of this ever even comes close to happening.

****MILD SPOILERS******

There are 3 main reasons why this movie is so terrible: 1.) Incoherent and totally non-sensical plot. 2.) Annoying style-over-substance "MTV" camerawork. 3.) Moronic characters and plot holes.

Allow me to elaborate.

1.) Apparently, when this movies was being made, they couldn't decide whether to make a movie about church conspiracies, the stigmata, or possession. So, guess what? They combined them! An aetheist gets possessed by a dead person, who then makes her exhibit the stigmata so as to expose a church conspiracy. How a regular person is able to transcend death and possess another human being through his rosary is never explained, nor even talked about. Now, instead of just saying what he wants to say, he gives her the Stigmata. WHY? Why not just spit it out? Instead, we get treated to scenes of screaming things in harsh voices, carving cryptic messages on cars, and writing messages on walls. Apparently this priest was also a violent guy, because the possessed young lady also wigs out on one o f the characters, while talking in that cliched, harsh, "possessed" voice that we all have heard countless times. This also starts to tie into my second complaint, because whenever the young lady gets the stigmata, she also defies the laws of gravity by floating into the air, and tossing everything and everybody around her as if they were in an earthquake? Why does this happen? Who knows!?! My guess is that the director thought it looked "cool".

2.) This movies contains dozens of shots, in slow motion, of course, of birds showing up out of nowhere and flying off, and most annoyingly, of water dripping. This woman's apartment is constantly dripping water! CONSTANTLY! Logically, the place would probably fall apart with this many holes. To sum up this complaint, towards the end, and for absolutely no reason, the camera cuts to shots of water dripping, in slow motion, in reverse!! WHY!?! I have no idea! It has no relevance to anything, and once again, I'm betting it's because the director thought it looked "cool".

3.) One of the main characters says he became a priest to explain away holes in science. This doesn't make sense to me. I would think that going to church would be enough, but no, he has to go through the entire rigamarole of becoming a priest. I just don't buy it. Secondly, there are lots of plot holes, a few of which I will elaborate on below. For starters, when she first gets the stigmata, the scene ends with her laying unconscious, bleeding. Next, she's in the hospital. Who called the ambulance? Another one is towards the end, when the previously mentioned "scientific priest" character is talking to the spirit who is possessing the girl. He says, "Take me as your messenger!" Not a word for word quote, but you get the idea. His response? "You have no faith, only doubt!" So, because of this, he possesses an aetheist! An aetheist has no faith, far less then any scientific priest! And then, there's the fact that the object of this movie's conspiracy, this Lost Gospel (of St. Thomas, I believe) is available at local bookstores. The characters are willing to kill to supress this document, but you could walk down to a bookstore and buy it. Maybe this is supposed to take place in an alternate history, where it isn't wide known, but the movie never tries to tell us this, or to even hint that this is an alternate happening of that document's uncovering.

In closing, this movie is terrible to a spectacular degree. It is my arch-nemesis, which I feel the need to insult every chance I get. I loathe it. Final Grade: F