Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: With the rising popularity of the now iconic Godzilla series, like with any hit cinema event, there was inevitably going to be a crowd of imitators trying to cash in on the success on the big lizard. With Godzilla came the dawn of a rising popularity of the kaiju (giant monster) genre. Many sought after success; a few gained it. One of the few that not only profited, but garnered popularity was Gamera, a giant turtle that could breathe fire in and out and fly by spewing flames from the sockets in his carapace as a means of jet propulsion. But unlike Godzilla, Gamera was marketed as a friend to all children, later fighting other monsters to save kids in peril, and thus Gamera became very popular amongst the kiddies. Unfortunately, that's about the only audience mainstream that the original Gamera series will have any appeal to. While the new Gamera movies directed by Shusuke Kaneko are marvelous, revolutionary monster movies, the original series, including the original, is nothing special.

The first Gamera movie, titled in Japan as "The Giant Monster Gamera" was clearly a Godzilla want-to-be. Even though the movie was produced in the era of color films, it was shot in black-and-white. Why? To imitate the first Godzilla movie from the 1950s. Gamera also attacks Tokyo. Because Godzilla attacked Tokyo in the first movie. I don't know much about the Japanese version, for the version I am familiar with the Americanized version, where scenes were cut and new footage with American actors were inserted (is it coincidence that the same thing happened with the first Godzilla film?) Now whether this adds or takes away from the film, I cannot say. But "Gammera the Invincible" is really nothing more than a ponderous bore that just plods along like the big turtle himself.

"Gammera the Invincible" is a very routine-orientated movie. The characters are from a stock of science-fiction standards, the story is inane, the monster has no real motive for attacking civilization, the acting is laughable, and so on and so forth. The only thing that differentiates it from the Godzilla series is the ending of the movie, but that's also a detractor since the plan that eventually halts Gamera's rampage is completely phony and ridiculous. Now the rest of the movie and many other entries in this genre also fit that description, but this is a direfully stodgy monster movie.

And although Shusuke Kaneko would later transform Gamera into an interesting monster with his trilogy in the 1990s, in the original series, Gamera was not an attractive screen presence. He was neither scary nor sympathetic. He just waddles around like a toddler, swaying with each step, and knocks miniature sets over. As usual, everybody wants to destroy Gamera except for a little kid (Yoshio Uchida who was lazily left out of the credits though he plays a 'central' role) who thinks Gamera is a nice turtle.

Most movies in the genre that "Gammera the Invincible" is a part of are easy targets for criticism and this one is subject to extra pressure. Even in the company of many other Godzilla-imitators, this Gamera film is not a particularly good entry. And as far as my cinema experience goes, the rest of the movies in the series are either just as boring or worse. Like Godzilla, Gamera would be filmed in color and go on to fight monsters. And like Godzilla, he'd get cheaper and cheaper with every film until it was time to revive the series and make him serious again.

It's peculiar. Usually I recommend people to stick with the originals and pass on the remakes. But in the case of Gamera, my verdict is just the opposite. I strongly encourage people to watch the 1990s Gamera trilogy directed by Shusuke Kaneko and to skip over the original series unless interested. The new films are inventive, well-made, exciting, and above all, fun. The original series is a long stream of boredom.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I love this movie and have seen it quite a few times over the years. It does get better with every viewing. I agree with all of the positive reviews here. Yes, it's gritty and brutally realistic as life on the prairie was in those days. I found myself doing commentary as I watched it. Someone on here said Rip Torn was miscast. I couldn't disagree more. He is brilliant as the dour, miserly Clyde Stewart who says little and works like a slave/workhorse. Conchatta Farrell is fantastic as the widowed Elinor, whom Clyde hires as a housekeeper/cook (along with her 7 old daughter). Lilia Skala is excellent as distant neighbor called grandma. Also a star is the stark Montana prairie. It is both beautiful and brutal country in which to settle. There are some scenes that are both repulsive and necessary. No special effects here, what you see is real! It even has a terrificly perfect music score and a great script. Once you see Heartland, you'll never forget it. It deserves all the 10s it gets here.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: ... Hawk Heaven for lovers of French cinema and by extension French Screen actors/actresses. At its worst it's an indulgence, actors getting to bitch about other actors, question the validity of acting as a profession at all, etc whilst at its best it's a glorious celebration/send-up of some of the finest actors currently working. From a simple premise - Jean-Pierre Marielle's request for water being ignored in a restaurant - Blier spins off in all directions and allows the cream of French cinema to strut their stuff before the camera even throwing in nods to those no longer around (Jean Gabin, Lino Ventura) including the Director's father, Bernard, one of the great stalwarts of French cinema, from whom he fields a celestial phone call at the end of the film. Discursive and prolix, yes, guilty as charged but also something of a guilty pleasure.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Insisting that Martin Luther King's inspirational spirit resides not just in American civil liberties but inside the hearts and minds of people everywhere, Danish helmer Niels Arden Oplev transplants this belief to a 1969 Danish middle school. More specifically, it works its way into the crusade of a young boy named Frits (Janus Dissing Rathke) against his oppressively rigid and churlishly abusive headmaster Svendsen (Bent Mejding). Adapted from a true story, the performances are executed with certain aplomb and a refreshing command over its varied characters keeps it involving. A battle of ideologies between a 13 year-old and a demented disciplinarian gives way to inherent humour but awkward shifts in mood disorients despite keeping it shrewdly cynical in the same vein as a "Dead Poets Society" more than a "Matilda". It treads a familiar path but a continued and precise service to its young protagonist including a personal subplot that rounds off Frits as a young boy becoming a young man, manages to raise the film into a rousing family film with its nose right on the money.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME!

PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $)

PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.

PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!