Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What a waste! This movie could have really been something decent, but the writing, in particular, is crap, and the main characters are rather shallow and uninteresting. Mike Meyers was good, and the historical recreation of late 70s decadence was well crafted, but overall, this movie was a big waste of time. Instead, the movie to watch, that deals with similar themes and the same basic time frame, is the great BOOGIE NIGHTS.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Meatball Machine is an amazing splatter film, it has an original plot with young love, buckets of blood, and weird alien creatures that mutate people into freakish robotic war machines.

Now the film isn't for everyone, people who love splatter films or the movie Tetsuo: the Iron Man will applaud it.

The special effects can be cheesy at some points of the film, but your not exactly suppose to take the film very seriously.

Yet, all in all it's a lot of fun, well if you find budding romantics infested with slimy tumor like gobbles who seek to destroy each other in bloody alien oozing battles.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.

A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.

This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film.

The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story.

The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw the capsule comment said "great acting." In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer." I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.

We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.

The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.

But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: "If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, "Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate work

Andy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film.