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

A: To say Funky Forest: The First Contact is a bad movie is an understatement of incredible proportions. I can really get into a good art house film, even a surreal and twisted romp like El Topo, Naked Lunch, and Survive Style 5+, because those movies actually have something worth discussing when the credits roll.

FFFC attempts at every avenue to be this deep and intellectual, essentially there is no substance in this movie. This movie is badly done, the visuals in this movie are not inspiring, the dialog is worse, the musical numbers destroy this movie.. I chuckled for GUITAR BROTHERS, but that was immediately wiped out by something completely unnecessary, and irrelevant. It attempted to be deep and meaningful I think, but its just pretentious disoriented nonsense. Freshman film students without a camera could craft something more interesting.

Guitar Brothers and the stand up routines in between skits get 1 point each, everything else is just badly paced, pseudo-creative, heavy handed attempts at being AS good as films by other REAL directors like, Sogo Ishii, David Lynch, and Jodoworsky. Give me a break. I am convinced that people that rave about FFFC are doing so because they have no idea of what they saw, because it was nothing but mild pertinent statements here and there mixed with stupidity and blended until you puke on your own shoes.

This movie was an extreme disappointment, coming off the high that was Survive Style 5+, a film that actually has meaning, combined with excellent use of scenery, cinematography, catchy dialog, funny moments, good soundtrack, excellent performances, fantastic pacing and flow. FFFC features the exact opposite in every way, boring scenery (20 minutes staring at a bland beach at night? a completely white stage? Alien balls floating in white space? a dinky school hallway and then a... school hallway?), terrible cinematography, forgettable dialog, nothing funny or humorous, save the fact you just wasted your life for two hours, soundtrack?, amateurish performances, uneven, disjointed, and often flat out dragging pacing, zero flow whatsoever.

There are those that claim this is what makes FFFC a great movie, that it is so unconventional at every turn that its pure genius. This is simply a way to stroke your own ego it seems, because "unpredictable" could be a good quality for a film if it wasn't coupled with "boring", "innane", and "terrible". Personally I have spoken with two people who admitted to me that FFFC was terrible when they left the theater, but overwhelming rave by art-house elitist made them watch the movie again and then come back to me with a... "Hey it was pretty good I liked it".

I'm going to put my foot down, this movie is slop, I don't care if Roger Ebert says this film is the best thing he's ever watched since he lost his own virginity. "The Emperor's new cloak" I say... this movie is no way indicative of the other psychedelic/trippy films to come from Japan in the last 10 years. Taste of Tea, Party 7, and Kamikaze Girls are much better movies (even with a low budget), and none can honestly compare with Survive Style 5+. Watch FFFC only if your interested in making a pretentious pile of nothing on a shoestring budget.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I buy or at least watch every Seagall movie. He came out with a handful of good movies then descending into poor stories, bad camera work and a walk-thru persona, he nearly lost me. A few movies ago he remembered how to make a decent movie. Now he's forgotten again. This film is seriously dark (on any level you care to name). There is a lot of slash & gash going on here with no discernible purpose unless it's meant as a warning against the military.

Seagall may have had a stand-in for many of his scenes as it was often too dark to tell and someone else's voice was used most of the time. Sadly the only interesting character was the bad guy who killed his guard to escape custody & then proceeded to raise havoc all over the place. Okay since when do we place an armed guard in the holding room with a prisoner? Anyway this bad guy was at least colorful, and very focused. There's lots of gore if you like that king of thing. It looked to me like the bad guys tore the same gash every time. I'm just glad they didn't suck the blood from their hapless victims. I harken you back to my summary. Basically it is a horror movie disguised as an action film.Dec 6,2006
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The Brain That Wouldn't Die is one awful piece of film that stinks from the opening credits. It's got all the classic signs of being bad: unbelieveable plotline, terrible acting, low-grade sets and lighting. The plotline goes like this: When a doctor and his fiancee get caught in an accident, she gets decapitated and he picks up her head and takes her to his lab, where he sets up her head in a pan with some special liquid that keeps it alive. I'll bet Virgnina Leath, who played the head in a pan had to spend a lot of uncomfortable time wearing that pan around her neck and squatting under a table. Anyway, the doctor then tries to find her a new body, and hires two strippers so she can chose one to have her new body. Bad all the way through, so bad it was torn to pieces on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: obviously has some talent attached, Maria Bello is always great. but this is just a dreary wast of time, portraying every character as someone to be loathed and exploited so someone could make a movie out of an 'interesting' story. well, i hope they got it out of their systems. unfortunately for the audience, there is no insight, no sensitivity, no context, and really no humanity. which would all be fine, except it has no humor, no horror, no context, and nothing constructive to say about the story it's trying to tell. bad things happen, you sit and watch it, you don't care, so what? 99% of the time, the words 'based on a true story' constitute an unintentional warning to the audience. it means the director and screenwriter are lazy and fascinated by some events they heard about somewhere, so they just throw them up on the screen and expect the 'true' nature of the story to make the audience feel something without the filmmakers having to do any of the work. i hope they had a great time making this movie. it stinks on ice.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.