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

A: If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.

Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.

The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.

Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.

And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.

But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.

If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.

Two stars out of ten
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Before films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' 'Suspiria,' and 'Halloween' changed the view of horror forever, there was a more Gothic and far less violent era in the genre. Films like the Hammer Horror series and 'Rosemary's Baby' were what scared and thrilled audiences throughout the 60s and early 70s. I can't tell you how many times I rented this film during my childhood, but I did because there was something about it. I didn't want to limit myself to the slasher and zombies movies of the 70s and 80s and films like this production from the famous, but sadly long gone Amicus film company were a good start.

Pros: A grand, eerie music score. Strong performances from a stellar cast. Brilliant cinematography. Plenty good old fashioned thrills and chills, especially in the first and last vignettes. Some haunting moments and images. Moves at a slow, but stead pace. The house is one spooky, oppressive dwelling. Great production design and set decoration, which give the film a real old Gothic horror feel. Depends more on mood and bloodless chills than on gore and gratuitous nudity for it's thrills.

Cons: Some pacing issues in the first half. Aside from the 'The Cloak,' the rest of the stories feel like they've been done before. Cliches galore. The second story, 'Waxworks,' has fine acting and it's moments, but is the weakest of the four in terms of scares and suspense. The low budget really shows at times.

Final thoughts: After seeing this film for the first time in many years I can see why I rented it so frequently. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good example of a time when horror films were made with style and class. Watch this one with the lights off.

My rating: 3.5/5
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Well then, what is it?! I found Nicholson's character shallow and most unfortunately uninteresting. Angelica Huston's character drained my power. And Kathleen Turner is a filthy no good slut. It's not that I "don't get it". It's not that I don't think that some of the ideas could've lead to something more. This is a film with nothing but the notion that we're supposed to accept these ideas, and that's what the movie has going for it. That Nicholson falls for Turner is absurd, but then again, it is intended to be so. This however does not strike me as a.)funny, or b.)...even remotely interesting!!! This was a waste of my time, so don't let the hype get the best of you...it is a waste of your time! With all that being said, the opening church sequence is quite beautiful...