Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. "The Hurt Locker" has won more "Best Picture" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.

There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie.

But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.

I normally don't care for war movies and "The Hurt Locker" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an "Igor"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.

But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in "Kleinschloss" ("little castle"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.

It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.

Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.

This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.

Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
ATTENTION, SPOILER!

Many people told me that "Planet of the Apes" was Tim Burton's worst movie and apart from that much weaker than the original film. So I decided not to see it. Another friend of mine who hadn't seen the movie yet, advised me to watch it in spite of this because 'a Tim-Burton-movie is still a Tim-Burton-movie'. I decided to do it, and I found that he was right.

It's clear that a remake of such a famous film as 'Planet of the Apes' is automatically influenced by commercial thinking. Still, Tim Burton managed his film to represent his weird playfulness just as well as 'Beetlejuice' or 'Batman'. If you are already fond of Burton-movies, it's hard not to like one of his films, even if it has some flaws: nerve-racking monkey squeals, over-dressed apes and a leading actor who could have been, without difficulties, replaced by anbody else.

What the film gives us in the first place, is an answer to the question: What's the result when Tim Burton is instructed to create a remake? First of all, Burton wouldn't be Burton, if he wouldn't refuse to call it a remake from the start; it's a 're-imagining'. On the other hand, Burton knows that almost every viewer of his movie has seen the very first film version starring Charlton Heston (as human), and he knows that a remake doesn't exist without its model and that the two films will not stop being compared. So all he does is playing with this comparison at every moment of his film, e. g. by referencing to quotes. Concerning the story-line, Burton does a brilliant job by answering open questions of the original first, and then driving the whole audience to despair by destroying this wonderful clarity and ending the movie with AND HERE IS THE SPOILER Leo coming back to earth and finding himself inside a world that seems to have been ruled by apes forever.

Now, this is the burtonesque answer to people's expectations they hold because of the astonishing, shocking ending of the first 'Planet of the Apes'. An ending, even more unexpected, more astonishing and: completely confusing, because and here I'm disagreeing with various 'Planet of the Apes'-homepages and -platforms it does not make any sense. There cannot be a meaning to it, or just a so complicated one that it becomes ineffective. Tim Burton is playing his cruel games, he does it with a grin and he does it well. Burton fans will sure like it, others may feel betrayed and complain about some sort of manierism. Well, and I don't think producers will ever ask Burton to direct a remake again