Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is a great film. If this is any indication, than Hong Sang-Soo really is "Asian cinema's best kept secret". It's very similar in style to Tsai Ming-Liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien, and covers a lot of the same ground as them thematically, but I think I actually enjoy this more as a whole than any single one of their films. The overt minimalism is slightly less pronounced here than in their work, although it still completely fits that style (the camera never moves even once), and somehow I found the film less self-consciously "slow" than Tsai Ming-Liang or Hou Hsiao-hsien, which I think is part of the reason I enjoyed it more. Plus, it doesn't keep it's subjects quite as detached as Hou does. I felt like the film was also somehow more "complete" and less open-ended (just barely) than some of their work, although that's not to say it had much of anything resembling a forward-moving plot. I would have a hard time believing that Sophia Coppola wasn't directly influenced by this film for "Lost in Translation" (scenes of a young woman wandering around by herself, and languishing in her hotel room wearing punk panties can't help but seem familiar).
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: wow! this is a good movie! The acting wasn't good at all, but if you look at some moments in the film, rewind, and watch it again, it is genius! The man in the begin of the film walks with his suitcase against a three. WOW!I never expected that. Then he puts the coke in a suitcase and runs away. I bet that smoking guy against that three was one of his mates who sold the drugs later. And the genius quotes: ''nice shades, i need a pair'' ''their yours.. if you think you can take them..''.. just Brilliant! And the fighting is the best i've seen in a while. Look at the second guy he takes down after he hit the head of the first guy against the table. WHAT A HIT! And in the middle of the film, one guy in a car shot one time, then 3 guys fall, he is really good at aiming. It costs a lot of money to hire these guys like him. The end was brilliant, it was so exciting that james cahill walks 5 minutes up and down the stairs and shoot jason peters after his distraction moves. Jason Peters falls down, and roll over again while he is dead! I can't say with more words how great this movie is!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a tepid docu-drama that covers no new ground, reworks all the cliches and is sloppy with facts. For example, Munich is a very flat city. So why is it hilly in the movie? For example, the end of the Great War in 1918 was not a surrender but an armistice. Yet it is announced as a surrender. For example, European news vendors did not (and do not) shout headlines as they hawk their papers. Yet this strictly American custom is employed in the film. For example, the Nazis did not adopt the German eagle until after they had taken power but there it is on the lectern as Hitler delivers one of his stem winders. Indeed, most of this disappointing production consists of little more than Hitlerian oratory. The movie also perpetuates the myth that the beer hall putsch was hatched at the Munich Hoffbrauhaus. It was not. Robert Carlyle does a fine portrayal of his subject. But his supporting cast is adequate at best and very often not even that. These comments are based on the first episode only. One only can hope the second will be better but don't bet on it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.

Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.

Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.