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

A: This film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent "Mr Muckerji" -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! "Fools -- Fools -- all my life"...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I sat through this movie expecting a thought-provoking, fact-based film. But instead was given some of the least thought out arguments against the Christian faith imaginable. For instance, in an effort to prove that Christianity is inherently violent, the narrator constantly quotes the bible without giving context, and thus altering the meaning of the text. Jesus is quoted as commanding the execution of those who disobey him, when in fact, the quote is from a parable Jesus told, involving a king who is then quoted. Thus the narrator makes it appear as if Jesus says one thing when he is actually telling a story where one of his characters says it. This is dishonesty in a very obvious form. Is this really what Atheism has to offer the world? This film also attempts to use the success of the Passion of the Christ over Jesus Christ: Superstar and The Last Temptation of the Christ as evidence that Christians are bloodthirsty. He makes no mention of the fact that the Passion was the most historically accurate Bible-film to date. He makes no mention of the fact that it was actually the best liked by critics of the bunch. He then edits in a series of violent images from the Passion as if to hammer home his point. Ironically, he makes no mention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out a few months later and plays violence for entertainment, versus dramatic effect.

One thing that really bothered me was his mockery of people who actually knew more about the subject matter than he did. All the Christians he interviewed were average schmoes in the parking lot of Billy Graham's New York Crusade. Atheists he interviewed for the film were notable authors and scholars. He asked the Christians how the Christian movement started, and of course, they said it started with the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples at Pentecost. Which is correct (Acts 2). He then gives the commentary, "isn't it funny how so few Christians seem to know the origins of their own faith?" and proceeds to explain that the apostle Paul started Christianity after being stopped on the road to Damascus. The poor chap seems convinced that Acts 9 happens before Acts 2. More deception? Or is this simply ignorance? He also throws around nonsense that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real person. Are you kidding me? 1 Corinthians 15 describes Jesus death and resurrection being witnessed by people (whom Paul names in the passage) for the Corinthians to question if they are in doubt!

There are many many other examples of how full of crap this 'documentary' is. But because I don't have time or patience to go into them all, I'll skip straight to the end. It's obvious throughout the whole movie that the narrator has an emotional vendetta against his upbringing in the church. And the climax interview is HIS CHILDHOOD PRINCIPLE! In a last-ditch attempt to disprove the Christian faith, the narrator tries to make a fool out of someone who gave him a detention as a child. Is this what passes as an intellectual documentary for the Atheist community? Surely there are intelligent Atheist filmmakers out there who can make a documentary that isn't a load of made-up crap passed off as 'facts'.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Presenting Lily Mars is a real pleasant little film which showcases the comedy skills of actress Judy Garland, along with her standard singing moments. The plot consists of Lily Mars tagging along after producer John Thornway for her big break. I think the comedy is light and nothing too heavy here. I really recommend this film for everyone. Judy is breathtaking in this role!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.

OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.

As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.

I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.