Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.

A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I cannot say enough bad things about this train wreck. It is one of the few movies I've ever been tempted to walk out of. It was a bad premise to begin with, first pregnant male, but then they tried to make it a spoof. What were they spoofing all those real pregnant males??? This was the worst movie I have ever seen. If it had enough votes it would be on the IMDB bottom 100. If it was possible to give it a zero I would, and I would still feel I had given it too much credit.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: But this is a great martial arts film. Liu Chia Liang ranks second to none as a fight choreographer, only Sammo Hung at his best compares. This is immediately clear from his proud exhibition of technique -rather than flashy camera angles etc. - during fights. The direction is tightly controlled to not only excite the viewer by the speed and movement but to awe her with the precise skill displayed. This film benefits also from Liu's participation in front of the camera. Liu's performance at the banquet scene with which the film opens is one of the high points in kung fu movie history. Liu is supported by the beautiful and talented Hui Ying Hung (of My Young Auntie fame) and 'Hsiao Hou' whose acrobatics are breathtaking, and preferable to any amount of wirework As for the plot , this film follows the not uncommon theme of revenge, but with character and moral development along the way, and a most fitting resolution. The humour in this is also of the best. If you only watch one kung fu film ever, this would be a good choice- it has it all.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Even duller, if possible, than the original (I hope I may say that under the IMDb guidelines). THE FRENCH CONNECTION at least tried to absorb European influences, to complicate the conventional view of the American police detective, even if the attempt was foundered by Friedkin's ambivalence, Americaness and general indirection. The (relative) arthouse boom of the 1960s (especially with the nouvelle vague) allowed for a huge influence of European cinema in Hollywood. This lent a new vigour and complexity to a weary medium, and, in the best of them (eg BONNIE AND CLYDE, early Scorcese), a new subversion of received practice. The original CONNECTION was part of this movement, with its difficultly distanced style, and anti-detective figure. TWO is old Hollywood's right-wing reassertion of American values.

This is figured in the film's very tiresome America vs France dialectic. For instance, TWO is shot like a 70s French policier. It was the French, of course, who insisted on the greatness of American movies when they were ignored at home, and this, in a sense, is a reclamation, a warning against Gallic presumption. This can be seen in the pattern of the two movies. CONNECTION has French gangsters invading New York, with the French style smothering the American thriller - this leads to the dissolution of the detective figure, and irresolution of plot - the baddie got away.

TWO has the American returning to France, with American thriller values imposed on the native genre - the power of the detective is reasserted and conventional resolution is achieved. This is further dramatised in Doyle's relationship with French inspector Barthelmy, whose dominant influence he must shake off before he can control the plot.

TWO seems to follow the original by undermining its detective hero. From the start, Doyle's importance is diminished at every turn. Despite the ending of CONNECTION, he is considered a hero. But he is an American in a foreign land, and his inability to control language or customs means he cannot dominate the plot. He even misreads the signs of the police force, mistaking an informer for a criminal, and getting him killed.

A detective's power comes from his power as subject to see and interpret, but Doyle spends much of the movie being watched, controlled, an object, a body (literally in the scenes after he is dumped by Charnier) to be viewed and interpreted. In CONNECTION, he instigated the action, chasing the criminals, forcing the plot; here he is passive, tied to a bed, locked in a cell, an addict, a dependent.

This loss of phallic power is predictably symbolised in the loss of his gun, and the film follows a depressingly familiar Oedipal trajectory. In the heroin sequences, he is comforted by an old lady who says he looks like her son. His drugged state is like a return to the womb, robbed of adult pressures. Her taking his watch reinforces the timelessness of this state, doubly significant for a man whose career depends on timetables and precision.

Oedipus was the first detective, and to avoid his fate, Doyle must reject this false mother who is dissolving his unified identity, and kill the father (Charnier) so that he can take his accepted masculine role in society. Psychoanalytic theory was popular among academics in the 70s(ironically instigated by a Frenchman, Jacques Lacan), but it's rare to see a film so literally full of it.

If all of these facts tended towards the minimising of Doyle, then the film's style doesn't. Friedkin distanced us from his hero by refusing empathy or character motivation, focusing on the mechanics of plot. Here, Doyle is a very conventional Hollywood hero. Instead of being lost in murky long shot, he is made knowable and understandable to the viewer with the traditional devices - point-of-view shots, close ups, connecting shots etc.

TWO is all about the fall and rise of Popeye Doyle. Plot in this case is subservient to the acting, which is the usual Hackman showiness. The cold turkey scenes, therefore, despite their tediousness, are not disturbing. We are allowed to share rather than coldly observe; this a far less discomforting experience. The scenes are also shot through with a lachrymose manly sentimentality that is very American.

So while CONNECTION tried to imitate the complex thrillers of Jean Pierre Melville, TWO does the complete opposite. Melville's LE SAMOURAI featured a gangster who started the film whole, powerful, outside language, and charted his eventual disintegration. TWO starts with a disintegrated character, achieved partly through inability with language, whose dominance begins when he steps outside language - the concluding action sequences are largely wordless.

In the film, the locale and language are important as they fixed and undermined the detective, but as he regains his power (figured in the return of his gun, and the cathartic burning of the primal site of vulnerability, the tower block where Charnier held him), the Marseilles setting becomes more irrelevant, and the mythic stand-off, which could take place anywhere, takes over. Compare the endings of the two films: one admits ambiguity and despair, the other absolute certainty.