Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.

Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.

The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.

Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell prominently featured on the DVD cover appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.

For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I watched this hoping to find out something I didn't know about modern history's most infamous man and couldn't help thinking that history has been rewritten in HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL . Hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer's shot . Hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest Ernst Rohm . Forgive me for asking but haven't the writers confused Adolph Hitler with Tony Montana from SCARFACE ? That's bad enough but what really offended me was that there's entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . Germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made Germany pay a heavy price for doing so. It was this economic environment that led the German people to have someone - anyone - to restore their pride and that's why they turned to Nazism . The German humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL can be taken seriously as a historical document, and I haven't even mentioned that Himmler and Goering are conspicous by their absence

There is one positive point about the mini series and that's Robert Carlyle in the title role . Okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( Archive recordings show that Hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but Carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate Hitler's own charisma on screen . Comments in the British press that Carlyle resembles the synth player from Sparks more than Adolph Hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of Hitler.

I liked the performance by Robert Carlyle but I hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . There's nothing to recommend it to serious history fans

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.

When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.

However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part cliched and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.

All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox