Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: CITY HALL is a somewhat mixed bag. Part vignettes of NYC political life, and part moralizing tale. Al Pacino, a Dukakis-esque Boss with Presidential dreams, gives an oft times sullen or subdued performance. There's a couple times when he chews the scenery, and in the case of CITY HALL, this is where he shines. John Cusack gives a subdued and generally flawless performance, without going into caricature of a New Orleans dialect, or sliding into melodrama during the films climax. Danny Aiello as a burrough political chief, is also very good. I love showtunes, too.

The major problem with CITY HALL, and it is a good movie in many ways, is the general feeling of a lack of momentum. It comes off more like a documentary, than a motion picture. We see the action or follow the story from a detached perspective, and naturally, the viewer doesn't become involved. When the viewer doesn't get involved to a certain degree, they become apathetic towards the characters, and eventually, the plot.

This tends to alienate, and what should have been a riveting, detail divulging finale, came off as a "Hmmm...uh...okay." They say you "Can't fight city hall," as the tread worn cliche goes. Yet, it still can't stop you from thinking what might have been, if they had just tightened up the screenplay and pacing of this movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but it is nothing new.

Everyone here is grouping it with other war movies, this movie has been miscategorized! Its not a war movie any more than "One flew over the cuckoos nest" is a asylum movie or "Cool Hand Luke" is a prison movie. This is a movie about individuality, nonconformity, self-confidence and the costs of that personality type.

The plot is the same as "One flew over the Cuckoos nest" and "Cool Hand Luke", its in GOOD company, and it holds its own. Its these movies it should be held up against and compared, not "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon".

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

A: Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I love Claire Danes, and Kate Beckinsale looks amazingly immature in her role. The movie is flawed only because it seems the two accused seem to be in some Monastery, working like monks in the grass and under strict almost martial-arts-like discipline. The acting and filmography and amazing colors of what is supposed-to-be Thailand is eye-catching, but Claire Daines steals the entire movie, and is unexpectedly profound in her learning the hard lesson of life itself to the very end, in an act of amazing unselfishness unheard of and completely unexpected in the real world. The flaws are minute and I recommend the film, which seems buried sadly forever to rare TV showings. I for one want the film for my collection- a collection of only "10" rated films. Watch it, you will be very touched.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on "something that has had a great effect". "La Maman et La Putain" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: "Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry." And by that I don't mean "sick and angry" about "the human condition" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - "an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Leaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like "un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his "anxiety" and his "despair". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if "La Maman et La Putain" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being "unflinching" (though why one should even feel like "flinching" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch "La Maman et La Putain" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have.