Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: If there were a movie that deserved a 0 out of 10, this would be it. 'House of the Dead' redefines the term "bad movie". Other bad movies, such as 'When A Stranger Calls' or 'Premonition', will actually look much better when compared to 'House of the Dead'. The basic "plot" of House of the Dead is a group of twenty-somethings travel to a remote island to attend the "rave of the century". When they get there, they only find some tents, a bar, a stage, and some bloody t-shirts. They decide to stay anyway, and they are soon attacked by zombies.

There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. It is not entertaining. Instead, it is painful to watch because of how terrible it is. The acting is unbelievably bad. In a DVD interview, one of the actors claimed that Uwe Boll, the director, is not afraid to tell someone when they are doing a good job or a bad job in a scene. This is a blatant lie. The script appears to have been written by an 11-year-old, who decided to include a scene of someone throwing up on a girl's chest and to include the hilarious line, "it smells like someone farted out here." The characters have no personality or depth and they do some of the most moronic things ever seen in a horror movie. Somewhere along the way, the characters also magically transform into a SWAT team to take down the zombies. It's like they don't even have to aim their guns and they automatically shoot the zombies in the head.

The scariest thing by far about this movie is the directing. There is something wrong with Uwe Boll. Boll's camera work is astonishingly disjointed. His pans to zombies running through the forest are more silly than menacing. Worse yet, Boll actually thought it would be a good idea to include small bits of footage from the House of the Dead video game into the movie. Quite often, and at the most random times, you will suddenly see an animated zombie getting shot. It makes no sense. No one in their right mind would think that was a good idea. It's like Boll wants to remind us repeatedly that this movie is supposed to be based on the video game. Uwe Boll also decided it would be cool to include slow motion 360 degree rotating shots during the action scenes, a la 'The Matrix'. Unfortunately, he does it way too often and each shot is nauseating. The soundtrack to this movie also boggles the mind. Most action scenes are accompanied by loud rap track. This also adds to the ensuing headaches caused by the atrocious 'House of the Dead'.

'House of the Dead' isn't bad because it's based on a video game. In fact, it has very little to do with the video game. It also does not fit into the category of 'so bad that it's good'. It does however fit into the category of 'so bad that it's painful'. This movie just plain sucks. Uwe Boll should never be let anywhere near another movie set. Even his presence will curse a production. To all the directors out there: whenever one of your movies gets a bad review, all you have to do is remember that you didn't make 'House of the Dead' and you will feel much better. I will never get those 90 minutes of my life back. To sum it up, words really cannot describe just how bad this movie is. Everyone involved in the production of this film, especially Uwe Boll, should be ashamed of themselves. Although what I have said may make 'House of the Dead' sound funny, it really isn't. Nothing about it is funny. Avoid this at all costs.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, "The Angel of Death". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I never bothered to see this movie in theaters although I remember hearing the name over and over. I finally watched it this week and what a delight. For some reason, I was expecting it to not be very good so I was completely surprised when I sat down and stuck with it and then found myself completely pulled in. I read a lot of the other user comments and it impressed me how much people talk about her fighting in the ring, but what was wonderful about Diana is that she's a true fighter in life. All she needs to do is find her place where she be who she is and the ring helps her to get there. A very intelligent story and I'm amazed that this is the first time up for Michelle Rodriguez - what an excellent job she did. Adrian and her coach were also quite good.

This film is a little rough around the edges, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The story, the will, and the performances completely outweigh any flaws (that usually come with indie filmmaking anyway). A compelling portrayal of a girl finding herself and triumphing over her circumstances and a K.O. for Michelle Rodriguez!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Batman and Superman. Iconic. The better part of a century old. Who doesn't know of these two? There must be countless of fans who would die to make a film about them. Sandy Collora went ahead and put together a trailer for such a film(which does not exist, and is not being created, much less by this team). Perhaps what this has most going for it is how polished it is. Throughout, the cinematography is solid. The editing is spot-on. The production values, even with the costumes looking more like their comic counterparts than the ones of the feature films featuring these character, are quite high. It looks quite "Hollywood", this trailer. The physical types fit for, as far as I can tell, every single character. The lines are reasonably written. The shots are well-thought up, nicely achieved and fairly effective. However, this does have problems, and in spite of looking good, it doesn't quite match the energy and skill of Grayson(which only had the problem of teeter-tottering too much back and forth between a short and a trailer, as well as unbridled passion leading to the inclusion of too many characters and ideas). The acting is perhaps the most evident. It's... not good. Even some of those who only have one line and/or hardly appear on-screen at all manage to fail at delivering a good performance. The actors cast in the parts seem to have been chosen more for how much they look like the characters they're playing than their talent. Then there is the writing. Really, the plot, well, what minuscule amount there is(this and this character team up, something about some evil plot...) is fine. There is a problem in the characterization. While most characters seem to fit, Two-Face is, well, about as much as a cackling lunatic(which is quite simply, as far as I've understood, not what the character is) as he was in Batman Forever(and having your work on portraying any element of the Batman universe compared to Joel Schumacher's efforts can be considered the greatest insult to a fan). Also, putting that character in this is going to cause comparisons between this trailer and that film(honestly, Collora is practically *begging* for it with such a similar initial reveal) to be made, and, let's face it, this loses in every respect. Michael Antonik most definitely does not possess the screen presence that Tommy Lee Jones does, and the make-up(which, in aforementioned reveal, is essential) isn't as strong as that of the film(whether or not it was good in the film is another matter). The sad thing is that while Fiorella(John, who created Grayson) seems to be far more into the comics, and get them, the depth of them, better(not to mention possessing more of an ability to come up with compelling plot... Grayson had enough material for half a dozen feature films, or more), Collora seems to be the one with access to funds and the one who's more likely to have contacts(on account of having non-indie credits on his filmography) to actually have a shot at making an actual feature out of his trailer. I intend to watch other of Collora's work. But Fiorella is the one of the two whose work I will most definitely be most interested in. I recommend this to fans of the characters. 7/10