Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Ugh! Where to begin ... first, Campbell Scott's non-stop angst becomes a real turn-off after awhile (a very short while) as he internalizes his mounting anguish, curiosity and anger. Only we don't care! These characters as presented by the writer and director are wholly unlikable, and therein lies the key. They haven't given us anything to make us care if they are adulterous and whether or not they are still in love with one another. When Scott quietly tells his wife, "I could kill you" before their three daughters at the dinner table, after the shock of his selfishly poor timing wore off I almost wished that he had--and then done the same thing to the smug, wisecracking apparition of Denis Leary before being hauled off the the looney bin. An utter waste of time and perhaps--only perhaps--resources.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the "film"! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.

It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?

As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish "slap in the face" of recycled cliche and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead "actress" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Kurt Russell IS Elvis, plain and simple. His dedication to this role resulted in what I think, is the best movie bio ever. If you're an Elvis fan, see it if you can.

The made-for-television film was made two years after Elvis' death.

One piece of advice, there are two versions - one at 180 minutes and one at 117 minutes. The only one to watch is the longer one. The shorter one has more than one hour of footage edited out. It just does not work because the scenes in it are often dependent on the scenes that were cut.

This masterpiece takes you from Elvis childhood through his emergence as entertainment's greatest star. Shelley Winters and Bing Russell (Kurt's real dad) are excellent as Elvis' parents. And Pat Hingle delivers a very competent Col. Tom Parker.

Long live the King!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.

Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.

Terrible film.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.