Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and cliched that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun".
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The Gang of Roses. "Every rose has its thorns."

A mix of old western and hip hop, blended perfectly together. The clothing styles, the scenery, and the plot are all suited to what the director wanted.

Plot - in five years, they robbed twenty-seven banks and then vanished without a trace. Now, a small western town is under siege, and one of the first victims is Rachel's sister. The Rose Gang is ready to ride again. And this time it's personal.

Rachel (Michael Calhoun), Chastity (Lil' Kim), Maria (Lisaraye), Zang Li (Marie Matiko) and Kim (Stacey Dash), five gunslinging women who split up after five years of riding together. When Rachel's sister is killed, she ends up rounding up her friends once again and riding on a trail of vengeance.

A good, muck around version of western. (If you've seen Bad Girls, well this is a little bit better in the ways of the female characters).

I gave it 10/10 because the characters, plot and scenery made it for me.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor.

The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.

The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity.

A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times...

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Well well well. As good as John Carpenter's season 1 outing in "Masters of Horror" was, this is the complete opposite. He certainly proved he was still a master of horror with "Cigarette Burns" but "Pro-Life" is perhaps the worst I have seen from him.

It's stupid, totally devoid of creepy atmosphere and tension and it overstays it's welcome, despite the less-than-an-hour running time. The script is nonsense, the characters are irritable and un-appealing and the conclusion is beyond absurd.

And for those suckers who actually bought the DVD (one of them being me); did you see how Carpenter describes the film? He's actually proud of it and he talks about it as his best work for a long time, and he praises the script. And in the commentary track, where he notices an obvious screw up that made it to the final cut, he just says he didn't feel it essential to rectify the mistake and he just let it be there. I fear the old master has completely lost his touch. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong.

I want to leave on a positive note and mention that the creature effects are awesome, though. Technically speaking, this film is top notch, with effective lighting schemes and make up effects.