Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.

Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.

Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?

Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.

This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is a journey through the mind of a screenwriter caught in his own paradoxical philosophy. He examines the ever illusive question of 'who am I' and 'what is I?' It's a courageous and thought provoking enterprise. There is a shipload of beautiful images, dream-inspired, Escher-like paradoxes reminiscent of the hand drawing itself, or rather, erasing itself. More and more we follow the writer in his agony over what to say and what to film, we see him phoning with his wife who left for Peru, leaving him to take care of their baby, a task he performs with less and less attention until he's so absorbed in his dilemma's that he hardly looks at the child anymore. His wife comes back and makes a scene, destroys his notes and helping him go over the last treshold until he erases him-self. Interspersed with eye-pleasing and I-destructing images, the story is mainly philosophical. It's about the veils of Maya, the world of illusion. The paradox of the movie however, is that it needs a lot of talking and thinking to prove that thinking should stop. During the more than two hours of provocative beauty and rapid philosophising the movie made me long for silence or a shorter movie. If that was the purpose of the maker, he succeeded quite well.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version).
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.

Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.

This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.