An example of a movie review. positive.

A: Plague replaces femme fatale in this highly suspenseful noir shot in New Orleans by director Elia Kazan. Kazan as always gets fine performances from his actors but also shows a visual flair for claustrophobic suspense with a combination of tight compositions and stunning single shot chase scenes.

A man entering the country illegally is killed after a card game. It turns out he has a form of bubonic plague so it remains crucial not only to arrest the killers but to find an inoculate all those who have had contact. City and health officials implement a plan of secrecy rather than alert the community for fear the culprits will flee the city and spread the disease. A detective and an epidemiologist up against the clock form an uneasy alliance as they comb the waterfront employing their contrasting investigatory styles.

Streets raises a huge ethical question about the publics right to know as the medical officer argues for a media blackout thus possibly creating a greater risk to the community. Regardless of outcome, you still may find yourself second guessing the actions of the the film's protagonist.

Richard Widmark as Dr.Clint Reed and Paul Douglas as Detective Warren display short tempers and grudging respect for each other in their search for the killers. Barbera Bel Geddis as Reed's wife has some good moments with Widmark in some domestic scenes that bring the right touch of (restful more than comic) relief from the tensions of the desperate search amid the grim environs of the New Orleans waterfront impressively lensed by cinematographer Joe McDonald. Zero Mostel as a small time criminal is slimy and reprehensible but at times sympathetic. Walter Jack Palance as the skeletal Blackie (Black Death?) is simply outstanding. With riveting intensity Palance dominates every scene he is in not only with ample threat but disturbing charm as well. In addition he displays a formidable athleticism that allows for a more suspenseful continuity, especially in the film's powerful final allegorical moments.

Panic in the Streets is probably Kazan's best non-Brando film. It's tension filled, suspensefully well paced and edited. It's ambient on locale setting lends a sense of heightened reality that allows Kazan the flexibility to display his visual style beyond the movie stage and with Panic he succeeds with aplomb.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A: If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.

But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.

The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".

From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil.

The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.

Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.

The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".

The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.

The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.

What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.

I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A:
Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.

Although Loretta Young is the lead, the outstanding performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.

Interestingly, unlike most movie of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, but it's quite a charming little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's highly recommended viewing when it does show up.