Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: For the first time in years, I've felt the need to log into IMDb today to cleanse myself of this movie by writing a review, because it was just such a let-down to watch. The plot sounded awesome when I read it, I expected a minimal mystery thriller, a claustrophobic phantom hunt. Unfortunately, it all gets watered down so bad by a mundane, tiring love story and too many contrived and teeth-gnashingly stupid "no-one-says-things-like-this-except-in-bad-movies"-dialogs that it's just agonizing.

Here's a quick run down of the worst offenses of this piece of film:

- The script relies so heavily on coincidences and the inexplicable and inexcusable stupidity of the main characters that it's just laughable. No, actually, it's angering. And lazy.

- Related to that: Cheap thrills. A long parade "just in time" moments.

- The main characters. Alright, it seems that the screenwriter has never experienced actual human beings in real life, but instead has gained all his knowledge from bad movies. Thus, his characters are boring, lifeless second generation cliches. They are mere plot-devices, place-holders without the slightest bit of personality. They are "man and woman in break-up who still love each other". Never seen that one before except in 100,000 movies and it's not getting any more realistic or enjoyable. Think of the blandest two-dimensional Hollywood fare and you've got it. There is not one character in this movie that is even remotely fresh, charming, or interesting.

- The far-fetched, vague resolution that's swaying very bad and needs just one nudge to topple, though the word "resolution" might be ill-fitting here, because the movie is a swampy mess that isn't going anywhere anyway. By the time you're through, though, you don't care anymore. The last third of the movie I just fast-forwarded, because it was just so unbearable to watch.

Okay, that's it. Whatever redeeming features this movie has, it all gets buried under incompetence. Don't watch this turd.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: THE FOURTH MAN (Paul Verhoeven - Netherlands 1983).

A film based on a novella by Gerard Reve, that works best as a thriller. That's quite surprising, considering Reve roughly needs a hundred pages for just a minor plot twist and tension is the last thing on my mind when reading his work.

"The Fourth Man" is top-heavy on symbolism. Paul Verhoeven is generally extremely preoccupied with proving something to mostly hostile critics and I'm never sure what it is exactly he is trying to prove. He usually underestimates his audience and tells his story in such an unsubtle way, he quickly diverges from the original idea or storyline, and almost seems to forget what needs to be seen on screen and what needs to be left out. In "The Fourth Man" he is not as explicit on detailing the plot as he is with sex and nudity (of which there's plenty) but, as in most of his films, he seems afraid the audience wouldn't get it and hammers home the story with overt symbolism mixed with some supposedly shocking nudity and graphic sex scenes. There's hardly a scene without sex or full-frontal nudity, most of it so maddeningly gratuitous and in your face, it undermines an otherwise good story.

Nevertheless, when you can cope with Verhoeven's pretty obvious satiric approach, it's quite an entertaining thriller at times with some intriguing plot twists and good performances all round, Thom Hoffman and Jeroen Krabbe in particular.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.

Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.

For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.

I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.

Avoid.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
This film is notable for three reasons.

First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).

Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers."

Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.