An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I question anyone saying they don't care for this movie. Some reviewers have said it didn't have enough action, some said it was too long, etc. Don't listen to them!!! If you like Shawshank Redemption and/or Braveheart, you will definitely love this movie!

The acting performances are superb! Tim Roth, John Hurt and Jessica Lang are allsuperb and Liam Neeson does an admarible job and is a very imposing character because of his size. The Cinemaphotography was brilliant and breathtaking. It is onw of the few movies I have seen in my life (along with Shawshank) that was virtually flawless from casting, directing, writing, acting, etc.!!!

I was amazed this wasn't in the top 50 or 100 movies reviewed. I felt so passionately about it that I just registered with IMDB so I could let everyone know the real scoop. I have seen this movie about 10 times (each time with a different person) and everyone has loved it! You must be awake and pay attention carefully for the first 30 minutes because they introduce quite a few characters in the beginning. If you have the attention span longer than most of these juvenille kids writing reviews for the movies on this site, than you will love this movie! Come on...all 3 Lord of the Rings movies in the top 9 and the Matrix at #32?!?! That should show you the age range of most reviewers here!

This is a top 50 movie!!!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen.

The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called "Horror Soundtracks". There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the "Creep's" face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.

If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.

I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.

"Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream" David Aames
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Bela Lugosi appeared in several of these low budget chillers for Monogram Studios in the 1940's and The Corpse Vanishes is one of the better ones.

Bela plays a mad scientist who kidnaps young brides and kills them and then extracts fluid from their bodies so he can keep his ageing wife looking young. After a reporter and a doctor stay the night at his home and discover he is responsible for the brides' deaths, the following morning they report these murders to the police and the mad scientist is shot and drops dead shortly afterwards.

You have got almost everything in this movie: the scientist's assistants consist of an old hag, a hunchback and dwarf (her sons), a thunderstorm and spooky passages in Bela's house. Bela and his wife find they sleep better in coffins rather than beds in the movie.

The Corpse Vanishes is worth a look, especially for Bela Lugosi fans. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.

When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite "unsaved" friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week.

If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer.

If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Ok, so, this is coming a few weeks late, but it is here. Mostly, this is because of statements of various negative natures. Starting with the technology. When Star Trek: TOS ran, special effect technology was extreamely low tec, and more than that, the crew had little money to do any kind of proper mock ups. In the 35 years seince TOS premiered, the crew of Star Trek have become experts at economy.

Ultimately, they have decided, quite rightly in my mind, to abandon the look of TOS and reverse engineered TNG et all. So what if they decided not to make the transporter out of gold glitter or made the phase pistols look closer to the ones from Star Trek II? As for the nits being picked about first contact with the Klingon Empire, it was presumed based upon comments made by Kirk and Riker that Earth only met the Klingon's in 2200. Nothing was firmly established.

Enterprise gives us the most promising venue of exploration that we've seen in a while. This is what Voyager COULD have been. No series can evolve without a few inconsistancies, but be thankful that Star Trek has so few. So, quit gripping and enjoy.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of" film lists.

I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.

Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.

Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.

Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)