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

A: I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.

Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: As much as I like big epic pictures - I'll spare you the namedropping - it's great to kick back with a few beers and a simple action flick sometimes. Films where the plot takes a backseat to the set-pieces. Films where the dialogue isn't so cleverly written that it ties itself in endless knots of purple prose. There are HUNDREDS of films that fit the bill... but in my opinion Gone In Sixty Seconds is one of the better ones.

It's an update of the movie that shares its name. It also shares that picture's ethos, but not quite it's execution. Whatever was great about the original has been streamlined. Whatever was streamlined was also amped up thanks to a bigger budget. Often these kinds of endeavours are recipes for complete disaster - see the pug-ugly remake of The Italian Job for one that blew it - but here, thanks to a cast of mostly excellent actors, Sixty succeeds.

The plot and much of the dialogue isn't much to write IMDb about. Often you'll have scenes where the same line of dialogue goes back and forth between the actors, each of whom will voice it with different inflections. A lot of people found this annoying; I find it raises a smile. Each actor gets a chance to show off his or her definition of style here, with Cage, Jolie and Duvall leading the pack of course (and it should be noted that it's also amusing to see Mrs Pitt not given first billing here). The chemistry between good ol' Saint Nick the stalwart (see date of review) and Angelina leads to a couple of nice moments.

The villain is not even a little scary - I've seen Chris Eccleston play tough-guy roles before so I know he can handle them, but I think he was deliberately directed to make his role inconsequential as not to distract from the action. We know the heroes are going to succeed, somehow; we're just sitting in the car with them, enjoying the ride. I think a lot of these scenes were played with tongue so far in-cheek that it went over the heads of a lot of people giving this a poor rating. In fact, I wouldn't have minded some fourth-wall breaking winks at the camera: it's just that kind of movie.

All this style and not so much substance - something that often exhausts my patience if not executed *just* so - would be worthless if the action wasn't there. And for the most part, it is. Wonderfully so. I've noticed that it seems to be a common trend to be using fast-cut extreme close-up shots to direct action these days. I personally find this kind of thing exhausting. I prefer movies like this where the stunts are impressive enough to not need artificial tension ramping by raping tight shots all the time. I've been told that Cage actually did as many of the car stunts as he could get away with without losing his insurance (in real life I mean - his character clearly doesn't care) and it shows. The man can really move a vehicle and this is put to good use in the slow-burning climatic finale where he drives a Mustang into the ground in the most outlandish - and FUN - way possible.

So yes, this movie isn't an "epic, life-affirming post-9/11 picture with obligatory social commentary" effort. The pacing is uneven, some of the scenes could have been cut and not all the actors tow the line. But car movies rarely come better than this. So if you hate cars... why are you even reading these comments?!

I'd take it over the numerous iterations of "The Flaccid And The Tedious" (guess the franchise) any day. 7/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I just saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.

SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would "hook up" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.

Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.

This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: An excellent interpretation of Jim Thompson's novel, this neo-noir thriller has all the requisite elements--deranged ex-boxer turned drifter, alcoholic widow with sinister desires, ex-cop turned small-time crook, and a kidnap plot destined for doom. Yet, the film never crosses into cliche country, but remains fresh and intriguing. The performances are all superb, particularly Bruce Dern's role as the wicked sleazeball, Uncle Bud. There is a tense uncertainty to the film's movement which, intentional or not, adds to the grim proceedings. Highly recommended.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I can see why Laurel and Hardy purists might be offended by this rather gentle 're-enactment', but this film would be an excellent way to introduce children to the pleasures of classic L & H. Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain acquit themselves reasonably as the comedy duo and there's a reasonably good supporting cast. I enjoyed it.