Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Awwww....yes, it is heartwarming and all that some unlucky family gets adopted by ABC/Sears and has their home "renovated." That's where the humanistic appeal ends. I liked it early in its run, but now this show has become disgustingly excessive.

Ten needy families could be given relatively luxurious homes with lots of goodies for every one family that each episode of this show splurges on. The people at Habitat For Humanity must be shaking their heads in disbelief. For example, is it necessary for a healthy sixteen year old boy to have a jacuzzi in his bedroom, or have his bed tricked-out with "Low Rider" hydraulics? Does the mom really need her dilapidated, non-running and rusted out old pick-up truck restored and "pimped" by some of the best customizers in California? A new one would have done the job quite nicely, and probably for a third of the price. Do people really need a sixty-five inch plasma screen in every room of the house? And then there's the issue of who pays the increased property taxes and utility bills. Even after the zaniacs at "Makeover" leave, somebody still has earn a living. I doubt the friendly folks down at Social Services will see the humor in all of this largess.

This show is nothing more than a ratings grabber for ABC, and a tacit commercial for its sponsors.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE was considered so distasteful in 1959 that several cuts and the passage of three years was required before it was released in 1962. Today it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have taken the thing seriously even in 1959; the thing is both lurid and lewd, but it is also incredibly ludicrous in a profoundly bumptious sort of way.

The story, of course, concerns a doctor who is an eager experimenter in transplanting limbs--and when his girl friend is killed in a car crash he rushes her head to his secret lab. With the aid of a few telephone cords, a couple of clamps, and what looks very like a shallow baking pan, he brings her head back to life. But is she grateful? Not hardly. In fact, she seems mightily ticked off about the whole thing, particularly when it transpires that the doctor plans to attach her head to another body.

As it happens, the doctor is picky about this new body: he wants one built for speed, and he takes to cruising disconcerted women on city sidewalks, haunting strip joints, visiting body beautiful contests, and hunting down cheesecake models in search of endowments that will raise his eyebrow. But back at the lab, the head has developed a chemically-induced psychic link with another one of the doctor's experiments, this one so hideous that it is kept locked out of sight in a handy laboratory closet. Can they work together to get rid of the bitter and malicious lab assistance, wreck revenge upon the doctor, and save the woman whose body he hankers for? Could be! Leading man Jason Evers plays the roguish doctor as if he's been given a massive dose of Spanish fly; Virginia Leith, the unhappy head, screeches and cackles in spite of the fact that she has no lungs and maybe not even any vocal chords. Busty babes gyrate to incredibly tawdry music, actors make irrational character changes from line to line, the dialogue is even more nonsensical than the plot, and you'll need a calculator to add up the continuity goofs. On the whole THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE comes off as even more unintentionally funny than an Ed Wood movie.

Director Joseph Green actually manages to keep the whole thing moving at pretty good clip, and looking at the film today it is easy to pick out scenes that influenced later directors, who no doubt saw the thing when they were young and impressionable and never quite got over it. The cuts made before the film went into release are forever lost, but the cuts made for television have been restored in the Alpha release, and while the film and sound quality aren't particularly great it's just as well to recall that they probably weren't all that good to begin with.

Now, this is one of those movies that you'll either find incredibly dull or wildly hilarious, depending on your point of view, so it is very hard to give a recommendation. But I'll say this: if your tastes run to the likes of Ed Wood or Russ Meyers, you need to snap this one up and now! Four stars for its cheesy-bizarreness alone! GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: 666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
OK. I'm biased. I live near Shrewsbury in England, where this wonderful movie was filmed. It still looks the same now. I remember them filming here quite vividly, and the fake snow on the streets for days on end. Often, when I'm walking through Shrewsbury I see a street or a house and it will remind me of this film.

George C. Scott's Scrooge is a more realistic character than many of the other screen versions. His physical appearance isn't the typical miser. Scott's is big and imposing. A man who finds those smaller than himself to be inferior.

We all know the story and the quotes. The book is one of the most cherished works in the English language. And I don't believe there are many cynics who would say that people aren't capable of change and redemption. This film version portrays all of that quite beautifully. George C. Scott may be American but he plays the part of the English miser with wonderful skill.

I love this movie. If you haven't seen this version I would strongly urge that you do. It's usually available for a very small amount of money... or are you too mean?