Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I rented this movie about 3 years ago, and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. I don't think I ever finished it. It is worse than a home video made by a high school student. I remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt, oakley sunglasses and a newer SUV, like a Toyota Rav-4 or something (I don't remember). I don't understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. He might have had a cell phone too, I cant remember, It was just horrible. I returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if I could get the hour of my life back. To this day it is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty bad ones.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the "elvis moves" down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie really kicked some ass. I watched it over and over and it never got boring. Angelina Jolie really kicked some ass in the movie, you should see the movie, you won't be disappointed. And another reason you should see the movie is because the guy from The X-Files is in it, David Duchovny.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.

The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?

Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.

And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.

Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.

While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.

3/10