An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I could write a big enough comment on any one of the characters in Gundam Wing, they could each lead the series with their internal conflicts. Instead we get 8 great leads that take us through 49 golden episodes of Anime bliss.

It contains dialogue that you can roll around in your head for months... years, and then go back to and derive new meaning from, a masterpiece in script writing (even though it has the typical Anime trait of there being a disparity between subtitles and English dub). It has an abundance of concepts and philosophies that make you think about your own views.

The relationships between the cold unfeeling males and loving female characters is a stand alone aspect of this series. The relationship between Heero and Relena, and Milliardo and Noin are joys to watch. The apparent rejection of the male is underpinned with an inner turmoil that makes the love (a word never mentioned in the series) of the women necessary for them in their harsh soldier environment. The women are chasing aspects of the men that we rarely, if at all see, which makes the leading men all the more enigmatic. It takes Heero all of the 49 episodes to show some caring, but he gets there, and when he does, its a big pay off.

And then there's the giant robot fighting. Fun to watch awesome sequences as good as any Hollywood epic fight scene. Any less clued up person would see giant robot fighting as a silly cartoon function for kids, as has become clear when I'm trying to recommend this series to my friends, but they're wrong. Many of the giant robot fights in Gundam Wing contain a hefty dose of pathos, usually concerning young rebels fighting for what they believe in against an oppressive society making their beliefs obsolete.

The constant shifts in tone and emphasis through each episode makes Gundam Wing impossible to be boring, it is a captivating, thought provoking study on the potential of the human mind and body.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod "defacing" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's "freedom of the press" line sounded silly compared to "..Care to step outside" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the "turn back the world to go back in time" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world. As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best. The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney. The film was produced by a legend of the Rock and Roll era,Mr Dick Clark. Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS". That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing". The same can be said for the director of the "Birth of the Beatles", Mr Richard Marquand. He went on to direct other theatrical blockbusters such as "Star Wars Return of the Jedi","Eye of the Needle",and "Jagged Edge" among many. The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994. However, the critics did not care for it,nor did the public, for it did not have a long life span in the theater. Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. I highly recommend this film.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: With that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie "Devil Doll" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.

SPOILERS--

Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who "supposedly" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body!

The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly!

Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars)