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

A: Usually I don't really like Emma Roberts so much, but after watching Nancy Drew it kind of changed my mind. The actors in the movies made the whole thing exciting and funny. Most of the time when you watch a mystery movie you can solve it before the middle of the show, but in this movie it's like you are actually there. The clues have to all fit together until you can finally understand the whole crime. I am still amazed how she found it out. The whole movie was really clever and the people who watched it with me loved the movie too. The clothes were my favorite part of the movie, it was so cute. I don't think there will be another movie like this until the sequel comes out. I give it a nine because the popular girls didn't really seem to have the part just right, but they still make me laugh. It was a really great movie and a great mystery. I definitely recommend watching it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde.

Now for the unrealistic parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old can't punch his fist through a window in one punch.

And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a horrible actor.

However, I do believe that the scenery was impressive, though I highly doubt the director even read the book.

This movie is good if you have not read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, but if you have, then begin a complaint letter to the director.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema.

First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.

Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.

Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.

Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?

Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...

A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do

Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.

The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.

It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.

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

A:
In this satire of the commercialization and 'lightheartedness' of war, John Cusack plays Brand Hauser, an assassin sent to to 'Turaqistan' to take out Omar Sharif, who is doing some oil business that will spell trouble for the former Vice President of the US's own company. In addition to this, Hauser must juggle his fake position as a trade show producer, a wedding for pop princess Yonica (Hillary Duff), and a nosy Liberal journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei).

Assessing the technical aspects:

- The acting (by the main characters,at least) was good, as was to be expected. Some of John Cusack's dialogue was quite obviously not written for him as he often seemed uncomfortable saying it. . . maybe unrealistic is more accurate. Joan put forth a great, and often hilarious, performance. Marisa Tomei, while I've never been a big fan of hers, was more than suitable for the role and worked well. Hillary Duff, however, was pretty terrible. They needed an attractive Middle Eastern (or Russian, or whatever that accent was supposed to be) pop-star. Unfortunately, they went 0 for 3 with her.

- Like I said above, the writing seemed a little stiff and mismatched at points, especially John Cusack's dialogue. Not much of it, mind, but some. The story also got a bit ludicrous at points, which is fine for a satire to a point, but it took it to a whole new level here. Luckily, the Cusacks and Tomei keep a relatively cool, calm demeanor throughout, and that makes a nice even mix of the craziness of the film and the levelheadedness of the actors.

- Joshua Seftel, who previously had a drought of real credits to his name, did a fine job with a rather wide-spectrum film. He handled the small ($10 million) budget very well, stretching it to make it appear to be much more. Seftel also managed to nicely blend the humour of the story. . . with the painful and hard-to-watch parts of the real war (including slaughter of civilians, etc.).

- As far as the general satire goes, its exaggerated look on the commercializing of war is very well done, especially the 'Golden Palace Poker' ads on the U.S. tanks. At points, it becomes a little too much, but, in the end, it still accurate portrays what it's going for an a young 'Mel Brooks'-type of style.

Overall, the film is very well made for the meager budget and it's definitely worthy of a look. It won't go down as one of the great satires of cinema, but it's certainly not the worst.

7/10.