Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I'm going to spend as much time on this review as the writers did on the script. This is easily THE WORST sequel EVER made.

They KILLED Navin Johnson. Not only was Mark Blankfield's performance GOD-AWFUL, so was everyone elses!! The physical comedy was forced, flat and predictable. The script seemed to have been written by mongoloid monkeys using the pen names Ziggy Steinberg and Rocco Urbisci. How the producers managed to squeeze out such vile cinematic excrement is beyond me. They even managed to make veteran actor Ray Walston look like a talent-less buffoon. Director Michael Schultz should be ashamed of himself.

I want the 96 minutes of my life I spent watching this befouled memory of a brilliant comedy back so I can try and convict everyone involved for this cinematic atrocity.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "The Man In The Moon" is a pretty good movie. It is very touching at times and is very well done in all respects. I wouldn't say the film was terribly original, but what is these days?

The cast members all did a great job with their respective roles. I really enjoyed seeing Reese Witherspoon at such a young age, and does quite a good job. Jason London does a fine job as well. And the only other person I recognized was Sam Waterston, who did a fantastic job with his role. I really liked Sam's character (Matthew Trant) a lot. At times he seemed to be the kind of father you dread, but in the end you really like his character. The rest of the cast was very good as well.

If you're into touching movies about growing up and dealing with what life throws at you, then you ought to watch this film. I'd suggest reading the plot synopsis and if that sounds like something you'd be interested in, then go for it. Anyhow, hope you enjoy the film, thanks for reading,

-Chris
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Now my friends, films like "La Bete" (aka "The Beast" or "O Monstro")only can be done in the old continent :),in this film we see all: horses dirty sex, nymphomaniac kind off gorilla, non sense dialogs, etc, etc, etc... In the serious terms now,its an allegory, that men sometimes could be bestial, visceral and brutal,Walerian Borowczyk (the director) shows us the loss of innocence, sexual violence, rape and brutality. Its a astonishing cinematic experience, bizarre and full of grotesque scenes. For all fans of European shocking exploitation, i recommend this film.If you like this one i recommend: "Orloff Against the Invisible Man" and "Alterated States".
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.

There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.

However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.

So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up "The man that was death.", "All through the house", and "Dig that cat, he's real gone."

This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...

In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
After erasing my thoughts nearly twenty-seven times, there is a feeling that I can now conquer this review for the complex French drama, "Read My Lips". Having written over five hundred reviews, I have never found myself at such a loss of words as I did with director Jacques Audiard's subtle, yet inspirational love story. Thought was poured over what was loved and hated about this film, and while the "loves" overpowered, it was the elements that were hated that sparked further debate within my mind. "Read My Lips" is a drama. To be more precise, is a character driven drama which fuses social uncertainty with crime lords with the doldrums of everyday office work. Here is where this review begins to crumble, it is all of these items but it is moremuch, much more. As a viewer, you are pulled in instantly by Emmanuelle Devos' portrayal of this fragile woman named Carla, whose strength is lost to the males in her office as well as her hearing difficulty. Audiard introduces us harshly to her world by removing sound from the screen whenever she is not wearing her aid, causing an immediate unrest, not only from the characters within the film, but to those watching. Without sound, the world is left open to any possibility, and that is frightening.

As we watch this difficult and unsettling woman setting into her life, we are then uprooted and given the opportunity to meet Paul (played exquisitely by Vincent Cassel), a slicked-back hair, mustache-wearing lanky man who was just released from prison, homeless, jobless, and forced by his parole officer to get a job. This is how Carla and Paul meet. There is that moment of instant, unsettling attraction. The one where we think she loves him, but he is dark (and here is where it gets even more fun) and where we think he loves her, but she is dark. The constant role reversal creates the tone of the unknown. Who, as viewers, are we to feel the most sympathy for? Paul sleeps in the office, Carla helps him; Carla looses a contract to a rival co-worker, Paul helps her; Carla's ability to read people's lips comes in handy for a make-shift idea for Paul. The continual jumps back and forth keep you on your chair, waiting for the possibility of some light to shine through this dark cave. It never does. Audiard cannot just allow this story to take place, he continually introduces us to more characters; one just as seedy as the next. Even our rock, our solid foundation with the parole officer is in question when his wife goes missing a subplot to this film that at first angered me, but upon further debate was a staple finale for this film. Yet none of this could have happened if it weren't for our characters. Devos' solemn and homely look is breathtaking, as she changes her image for Paul; the truth of her beauty is discovered. Paul, the wildcard in the film, continues to seemingly use and abuse the friendship for his final endgame. Then, just as we assume one, Carla takes on one last shape.

Audiard knows he has amazing actors capturing his characters. Cassel and Devos could just play cards the entire time and I would still be sitting at the end of my chair. The story, probably the weakest part of this film, is at first random. The interwoven stories seem unconnected at first, but Audiard lets them connect bit by bit. Again, the entire parole officer segment was tangent, but that final scene just solidified the ends to the means. Not attempting to sound vague, but this complex (yet utterly simple) story is difficult to explain. There is plenty happening, but it is up to you to connect the pieces. A favorite scene is when Carla is attempting to discover where some money is being held. That use of sound and scene was brilliant. It was tense, it was dramatic, and it was like watching a who-dun-it mystery unfold before your eyes.

Overall, I initially though this was a mediocre French film that I could easily forget about when it was over I was proved wrong. "Read My Lips" opens the floor for discussion, not just with the characters, but the situations. One will find themselves rooting for Carla in one scene, and Paul in the next. When a discovery is made in Paul's apartment by Carla, I found myself deeply angry. Audiard brought true emotion to the screen with his characters and development, and what he was lacking in plot the actors were able to carry. I can easily suggest this film to anyone, but be prepared; this isn't a one time viewing film. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Grade: **** out of *****