Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The Incredible Melting Man plays like an extended episode of The Six Million Dollar Man, but with violence and some nudity. I know this film is a bit crummy but I found it impossible not to kind of like it.

The acting and script are not the best. But the effects are good for a 30 year old movie with a budget of $50 - the title character takes quite a while to actually melt but when he does it's reasonably impressive; we also have one inventive death scene involving electrocution. Of note too is the music, it's insane - a cheese-tastic medley of nonsense.

Notable highlights:

* Marvel at the slow-motion nurse who jumps through a pane of glass for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

* Be amazed by a day in the life of a severed head.

* Beware of the psychotic cannibalistic melting humanoid. Called Steve.

* Be astonished when our hero takes a break from hunting the melting lunatic to have a bowl of soup and complain about insufficient crackers in the kitchen.

This film is just too 70's for me to hate it. It's tacky and trashy but I thought it was a lot of fun. You could do a lot worse.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought "Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!" but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him?
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.

When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.

All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.

It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.

Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it.