Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.

I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.

I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few "heart-wrenching" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a "Leave it to Beaver" world?
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Bonanza had a great cast of wonderful actors. Lorne Greene, Pernell Whitaker, Michael Landon, Dan Blocker, and even Guy Williams (as the cousin who was brought in for several episodes during 1964 to replace Adam when he was leaving the series). The cast had chemistry, and they seemed to genuinely like each other. That made many of their weakest stories work a lot better than they should have. It also made many of their best stories into great western drama.

Like any show that was shooting over thirty episodes every season, there are bound to be some weak ones. However, most of the time each episode had an interesting story, some kind of conflict, and a resolution that usually did not include violence. While Bonanza was a western, the gunfighting was never featured as the main attraction. While I am a fan of The Rifleman and Wanted: Dead Or Alive; those shows usually ended with a gunfight. Gunfights were how many westerns resolved every conflict, and Bonanza was very different in trying to seek peaceful resolutions and harmony instead of killing.

In the early years of Bonanza, there are some interesting episodes that do feature a lot of gunfights. Those episodes stand in contrast to the rest of the series, but they are pretty good in and of themselves. In 1964, when Pernell Whitaker wanted to leave the show, Guy Williams was brought in to replace him. Williams was playing the role of a long-lost cousin. Unfortunately, Whitaker decided to stay one more year, and thus Williams was written out of the series when he moved away to marry Adam's old girlfriend. If Williams had stayed on for the duration of Bonanza, one can only wonder how much better the series would have been in the years after 1965, when Pernell Whitaker left the show.

Undoubtedly, once Pernell Whitaker left the series, the stories focused more on comedy and country hijinks. Whitaker had often played the heavy in many episodes, and his absence left a void in the cast. Little Joe always wanted to play the nice kid, and Hoss always wanted to play the good old boy with a heart of gold. Since Ben was the kind and wise patriarch of the family, that did not leave too much room for any gunfights.

At some point they hired a ranch hand called Candy (David Canary) who became their fourth member of the cast, but Candy was never featured in any gunfights, and he was hardly more than an older version of Little Joe. For a year or two they also had Ben take in some other lost cousin (Jamie, played by the forgettable Mitch Vogel) who was a teenager that was usually getting into some kind of trouble with someone.

Apparently by adding the teenager, the studio was looking to attract younger viewers. It also gave the writers a chance to write episodes about teenage problems, alcohol, delinquency, etc. Those kind of preachy episodes were popular in the 1960s as a reaction of the establishment media to the counter-culture movement. Dragnet was probably the most popular source of law and order TV, though Hawaii 5-0, The F.B.I. and many other shows also tried to jump on the bandwagon by doing TV shows that featured irresponsible teenagers causing mischief, mayhem, and crime.

The addition of a teenager to the cast gave the Cartwrights more chances to show up and solve problems, but those episodes feel very contrived and are not very good in general. After Dan Blocker died, the series limped along for another year or so before it was canceled. The last season was pretty bad, as it featured Little Joe tracking down the killers of his wife, and most of the episodes were somewhat depressing because Little Joe was usually drinking or otherwise remembering how much he loved his wife, and how unfair it was that she was killed.

I don't think I have ever seen the last episode of the series, and I wonder if they ever officially wrapped it up in some way. By the last year, there was only Ben (Lorne Greene) actually living on the Ponderosa, as Adam had moved away (and never came back even once as a guest) and Hoss had died and Little Joe had left after his wife (in the series) had been killed by drifters.

Overall, the era from 1959-1965 is the best of this series. Once Adam left, it slowly declined. Most of the shows before 1970 are pretty good too. By 1970, the series was trying to hard to be hip and topical, and it had lost a lot of its western flavor. The addition of Candy and the teenage kid also diluted the general quality of the show, and the death of Hoss (Dan Blocker) was the final nail. Bonanza is probably the best western series ever made, and of the 465 episodes that were produced, at least one hundred of them are excellent western drama! That is a pretty good record. Even the worst of Bonanza is better than a lot of other TV shows.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
Some time in the late 19th century, somewhere in the American West, several cowboys in need of money go on a buffalo hunt. The group's leader believes that buffaloes are too numerous for the hunting to have any impact, but the more experienced hunter has seen how quickly the population can collapse, and he isn't so sure. Featuring buffalo herds living in South Dakota and showing film of actual hunting (the movie's introduction explains it as necessary thinning of the herd), the movie does an excellent job of presenting us with the plight of the buffalo and its effect on Native Americans without ever getting preachy about it.

The real story, however, is about the dysfunctional family which is created by the small group formed to do the hunting. The father figure is Charlie, a violent man with a short fuse. Sandy, his "brother", is the experienced hunter who is tired of killing but needs the job after losing his cattle. A half-Indian boy, who hates the fact that he looks entirely Caucasian, takes the role of adopted son. The grandfather (and moral compass) is an alcoholic buffalo skinner; Charlie's "wife" is an Indian woman whose companions he killed after they stole his horses.

Charlie is clearly the most interesting figure. He is mean and insulting towards everyone around him, yet at the same time he knows that they are the only family and friends that he has. He expects the abducted Indian women to hate him, then accept him, but he doesn't know how to react when she refuses to do either. He's the one who put the family together in the first place, but he's also the one who is fated to ultimately destroy it.

This is all very similar to the classic "Red River", which also features a family of sorts being torn apart by the increasingly violent and alienated father figure. As one might expect, this movie suffers by comparison. The plot is not as focused on developing the characters and family dynamics, and the direction fails to keep all of the scenes working towards this common goal. Charlie is so thoroughly unlikable from the very beginning that we never have any reason to care about what happens to him or his family. On the positive side, however, the message surrounding the buffalo slaughter adds an extra dimension to the film and its conclusion is far superior to the Hollywood ending which was tacked on to the end of "Red River". As a result, "The Last Hunt" is an interesting and entertaining film, very well made, but falling short of what would be needed to consider it a classic.