Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie bewilders me. It may be that I'm just a stupid American, but I really just don't get 400 Blows. Everything I've read about this movie has been a total rave, but I just couldn't stay interested. I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the critics say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring. Maybe it's the language barrier, may I'm just not "sensitive" or "artsy" enough, but whatever the case is, I hated this movie. The story itself isn't bad; it's about a young French boy who is treated unfairly by his parents and his teachers, and eventually he ends up in a juvenile facility. That in itself ought to be interesting, and it was, at first. There was nothing wrong with the dialogue, but then again it's hard to say because half of the conversations weren't subtitled and for no apparent reason, so I didn't always know what was going on. But for the dialogue we could understand, it made enough sense. The actors were believable enough, but it's hard to say what a real person would do in these situations. So you feel for the main character, but only in the sense that when he gets into trouble you think, well that sucks. The plot isn't even your typical plot. Each time he gets in trouble, he gets into more trouble than the last time, but the reasons never vary too much. And through the entire film you realize that there's nothing the main character can really do about it. So it's more like just waiting to see how it ends. The ending, by the way, was completely over my head. It's way too artsy for me, and I just didn't get it. Leading up to the end was easy enough to follow. The structure was certainly there, and it made sense as well, but everything was really drawn out. For the amount of dialogue and significant moments, the movie could have been an hour shorter. It just didn't end. Part of it was the unnecessarily long shots, none of which were especially memorable; for example, the ending was a clip of the main character running down a country road that lasted a good thirty seconds. Now, I'm sure that had some deeper meaning in it somewhere, but for the average viewer, I'd rather have gotten up to get some more food during that time. Or at least done something a little more useful than sit and watch this boy running, like doing my laundry, or taking a nap.

Final Verdict

The feeling throughout the whole movie was that this probably would be very moving and just amazing and that it would teach me some great life lesson, if I could only get what the director was trying to say by his unique decisions. As it was, I just felt cheated out of a good two hours of my life.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed

adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in

college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the

Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or

interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all

game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't

open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.

I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.

THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.

CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.

The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.

As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church.