Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier.

What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.

The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.

The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.

Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I like Ghost stories. Good ghost stories of bumps in the night, voices that cannot be explained. Now I've see many of them. As special efx have a ever more grip on todays films, some times to find a real gem , you gotta turn the clock back to the time when the writers and directors really had to use their heads to create really good ghost stories. Now this one, very rare , pilot episode for the TV series Ghost Story called " The New House " was one of the most scariest films I ever saw. It was on once in 1972,...I was only 9,..but nothing since then even compared to it. With all the remake going on in Hollywood, some one should do this one " as is " with no more special efx than the original. This episode was down right creepy as hell. I'm lucky to find it finally on DVD today and very rare and hard to find. The only other 2 Ghost Stories to even come close was the ORIGINAL " The Haunting " and George C. Scott in " The Changling " . Wish someone would do more ghost stories like these.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb.

Maybe it all got lost in the translation.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Kurt Russell is so believable and the action so non-stop that it takes thinking about it afterward to realize that there were honest-to-goodness important themes [overcoming fear of The Stranger, learning to rise above early conditioning, the strength that love and friendship can bring, etc.] in the storyline. This is so very rare for a 'guy's action flick' that even I [who thinks most A/A is violent pap] liked the film and have recommended it to every guy I know.....it's a shame this one was overlooked because by rights it should have been one of the biggest action-adventure box office hits -- it has something for everyone without straining credulity or losing the nearly non-stop action moments. I'm afraid the answer to it not becoming a hit lies in the fact that adults did not go to see it. Anyone under 20 probably has not only seen more violent action in their video games but probably would either not catch the multi-layered, multi-themed beauty or not care about it. This film could convert anyone who avoids A/A as mindless violence. If a guy takes his lady [or rents it or sees it in a cable listing] to see this film he'll be much more likely to get her to go with him to other action flicks.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.

In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the "Jerry Springer Show" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.

But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us.