Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Ya I rented it, so shoot me!

A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Truly this is a 'heart-warming' film. It won the George Peobody Award, winning over "Roots", so that may tell you something of the essence of this film. I am looking on the Internet how to order this movie since my former father-in-law, Eugene Logan, the co-writer of this film has been deceased for a few years now so I no longer have the opportunity to receive information from him. I would love to have his only grand-daughters, my daughters, see this film, as well as to pass this wonderful story on to his great-grandsons. My oldest daughter was seven years old at the time it was aired on television and I since have been looking forward to seeing it again. One of my friends said it was her favorite movie. I won't 'spoil' this movie for you.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Castle in the sky is undoubtedly a Hayao Miyazaki film. After seeing it for the first time I'm glad to say that it doesn't disappoint. On the contrary, you get your time's worth, which means (as to what Miyazaki's films are concern), that is nothing less than excellent!

Produced early in his cinematic career, Castle in the Sky anticipates many of the trade marks in his later movies, with strong (but young) female characters, forced to grow up due to external circumstances, helped out by very interesting (and some times lovable) supporting characters. And, of course, the usual battle of nature versus civilization, flying machines (lots of it!!), beautiful painted sceneries but alas, no pigs ( at least that i've noticed, after all I have only seen it once). Never the less, Miyazaki had already got his theatrical debut two years earlier, with Nausicaa, which was a dress rehearsal for Princess Mononoke, his magnum opus. Castle in the Sky is set a bit a part from these two, with a soft action packed first 30 minutes, resembling his TV series Conan, and his directed episodes of Meitantei Holmes. In here we are introduced to Sheeta, a girl who literally falls from the sky, only to be found by Pazu, a young boy working in a little countryside mining town. Intrigued by her amnesia and suspecting a connection between her and the mysterious flying city of Laputa, Pazu is set on helping her find out where she came from, whilst escaping the army and a gang of air pirates. As the movie progresses, the plot gets heavier and much more interesting, revealing Myiazaki at his best.

The sound track is very reminiscent of Spirited Away, (or vice versa, as Castle in the sky was produced first), and much like its director, Joe Hisaishi _the composer_ starts with a very light score, that gets more complex and beautifully fitting as the plot goes forward!

A note to the English dubbing, with a good interpretation from the two lead stars, although Anna Paquin's Sheeta has a very thick accent (which the actress still had at that point in her career), and a heads up for Mark Hamil as Muska, making up for a delighting yet devilish villain!

Don't miss this one people!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: After hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is I took the plunge and bought the DVD. That said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. For a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. The list of problems with the film could drag on forever. Chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. It dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. Nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly.

Secondly, as many had pointed out from the "trailers", the special effects are anything but special. The tripods looked OK in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade-Z 1970's or 1980's quality. Probably the worst effects of all were the horses, which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. The heat ray effects were laughable, as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. Also pitiful was the Thunderchild sequence, in which the Thunderchild, described in the book as an ironclad ram, looked nothing of the sort. Instead it resembled a World War 1 era destroyer, complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew), and torpedo tubes.

The colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. Most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out Mars to her in the sky. Well, the sky is black, but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. There is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape, bathed in full sunlight, and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. To detract even further, the color of the scenes made no sense. In some they are bathed in orange light. In others green light. In still others it's blue light. In some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. The frame-rate and camera is very shaky, giving everything a stuttering look.

Finally, the acting is overall sub-par. One man portrays two characters who's sole difference was one lacked a mustache. This led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. The English accents, even to American ears, are outrageous.

In summary, this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. I have not seen Gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one, because of it's poor quality in every respect, must easily be worse then anything that mainstream Hollywood has put out. I would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the IMDb rankings. It's a pity that Mystery Science Theater is not still around.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
You'd be forgiven to think a Finnish director from Helsinki would be no good at directing an American horror movie (especially one entirely located inside a US prison) - see this to prove yourself wrong! It was produced in the 80's after all and the film was made on a budget more fitting to a modern DIY company TV advert (something I think anyone would really notice nowadays what with practically everyone being accustomed to $100m+ budgets for action movies unfortunately dominating the industry mind!) being Mr Harlin's first major production and the - at least what nowadays would be considered a stellar - cast. I still think most of the Nordic contribution to the film industry as a whole is more to do with Stellan Stargaard's screen appearances (not mentioning the well overrated Mr(s) Bergman directorial efforts) - at least for all female viewers - but this flick really proves there does exist proper movie talent outside of the US and Hollywood to make us watch a film in suspense. Do try and watch this movie even if you're not a horror puff, IMO it's definitely worth it!