Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: As the film opens, two thugs kill another thug. When the body is discovered and about to be autopsied, the doctor realizes that although the man was shot dead, he was also suffering from the Pneumonic plague--a very nasty and more virulent version of the Bubonic plague! So, it's a race against time to find those who came in contact with the dead man and treat them immediately, otherwise a disaster could erupt.

Oddly, I actually know quite a bit about the Pneumonic plague, as I taught a series of lectures on it for my history classes. The film really did not do a good job of getting the facts right about the disease in that it looked little like what the people had in the movie. The biggest problem is that this illness is so incredibly grotesque that in 1950 they really wouldn't have been allowed to show it. Sure, there is high fever and coughing (they got this right) but also lots of bleeding and explosive vomiting of blackened blood--along with the enormously swollen lymph nodes like you'd get with the Bubonic plague--all purply and gross! I can certainly understand why they didn't go this far. Also, I am sure that the federal government would have had a much, much greater involvement in controlling and treating the disease--here in the film it was handled on a very local level and everyone seemed ill-prepared and a bit dumb. No one seemed willing to believe the doctors!! As for the acting, the film had some excellent actors here. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are, respectively, the public health doctor and police chief. Good actors but also known actors back in 1950. However, in his first film is the very menacing Jack Palance (still going by his original moniker, 'Walter Jack Palance') as well as the relatively unknown (at the time) Zero Mostel. Palance was great--very scary and very physically adept in his own stunts. Mostel played a heavy typical of his early work--a greasy and cowardly sort of evil.

Overall, despite really not getting the details right and wrapping everything up a little too neatly, the film is very tense and has excellent acting--and is well worth seeing.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Years ago, I found a "bargain bin" copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the "poverty row" studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.

The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some "red herrings" (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the "screaming lady" and provides little new in each film.

Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
As an native of Bolton, this film has obvious appeal for me. The location shots are fascinating and show a Bolton very much in transition - there are a number of scenes of apparent dereliction but this serves to show the town being rebuilt - and the idea that the old must make way for the new is right at the heart of this film. A slightly miscast James Mason leads an enjoyable ensemble in a story about a fuss over a herring that spirals into a full-blown generational conflict, then a pleasingly schmaltzy resolution. Though I'm a bit too young to remember it fully, the minutiae of Lancashire life in the 60s is all here: cashing up on a Friday, songs round the piano, the Sunday constitutional, good neighbourliness, the trepidations of courtship, the massive importance of self-respect, and I was pleased to see Naughton's funniest lines from the play left intact. There is no doubt that this film ought to be made available on DVD - it is well crafted and most performances are well realised.