Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I don't understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a "sleazy" piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I had never heard of this one before the owner of my local DVD rental outlet mentioned it to me; being a 1980s horror flick with the notorious distinction of having been banned in the U.K., I decided to check it out. The film turned out be a dull, amateurish and ugly-looking ride; the sound recording is so poor that dialogue is unintelligible half of the time, whereas the acting gives new meaning to the word inept!

What's worse, the film follows the awfully tired formula of a trio of teenage girls being involved in an accident and finding themselves sheltered by a dysfunctional family living in remote surroundings. Soon, one of the girls goes to look for help and is never heard from again; another, still bed-ridden, is quickly disposed of (after being forgotten for most of the duration). The heroine is the one to interact the most with the three inhabitants of the house: a harridan of a bible-thumping mother (cue horrendous overacting), her repressed (and long-suffering) daughter, and the latter's weirdo brother who occasionally appears on the scene to drool over the sleeping female guests.

Often resorting to dinner-table reminiscences by the man-hating mother (as a means of filling in the dreary, to say nothing of unoriginal, backstory) and which invariably develop into mother-daughter sparring contests, the film does have one ace up its sleeve the twist ending is as unexpected as it is ingenious, but it does little to remove the bad taste left in the mouth by the film (as much through the lameness of it all as the intermittent gore) or the inescapable feeling of having wasted 80 minutes of my time...

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: While not as famous as some of their other collaborations (such as THE BLACK CAT and THE BODY SNATCHER), this is a dandy little horror film even though the casting decisions were a bit odd. Boris Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a weird scientist who lives in the Carpathian mountains--near where the Dracula character's home town. Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Benet--whose nationality was never discussed though the name certainly sounds French. I really think it would have made sense to have the two switch roles, as the Carpathian role seems tailor made for Lugosi--especially with his accent. However, despite this unusual twist, the two still did excellent jobs. Karloff's was definitely the lead role, but Lugosi acquitted himself well as a relatively normal person--something he didn't play very often in films!! It seems that Dr. Rukh is a bit of a pariah, as other scientists (especially Benet) think his theories are bizarre and nonsensical. However, over the course of the film, Rukh turns out to be right and Benet is especially generous in his new praise for Rukh. But, unfortunately, the wonderful new element that Rukh discovered has the nasty side effect of turning him into a crazy killing machine (don't you hate it when that happens?). While this could have just been a simple nice scientist turned mad story, the plot was well constructed, the characters nicely developed and the mad Rukh was NOT a one-dimensional killer, but complex and interesting.

This film is bound to be enjoyed by anyone except for people who hate old horror films. You can really tell that Universal Pictures pulled out all the stops and made a bigger-budget film instead of the cheap quickies both Lugosi and Karloff unfortunately gravitated in later years. Good stuff.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.

It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.

We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.

Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.

One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.

It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.