Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it.

Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality.

Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods.

But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more!

Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals.

Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.

The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane "poor, plain and little" grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy "paving hell with energy"; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him but "pervious, through a chink or two". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.

It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.

Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, "Wide Sargasso Sea", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out you'll never see the 'hero' of "Jane Eyre" in quite the same way again.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 19881992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.

My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.

If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!

However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.

1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.

I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERS

I think I need to puke now
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Oh it really really is. I've seen films that I disliked more, due to whatever reason, but never have I seen a film that just fails in every single aspect of film making. It even fails to fail at film making, in a Way the Hercules in New York could be said to do. It's not the film I like the least, but it is the very worst film I've ever seen.

The acting is the first thing that strikes you. I've never seen a worse acted film outside of pornography. In fact I've plenty of pornographic films that are acted a damn site better than this. It really is awful.

Technically, it's terrible. The camera-work is amateurish. The editing is nonsensical. I presume they couldn't afford proper sound equipment, and this meant that every scene in a car (and there's a lot of them) has them driving at about three miles per hour and every scene set outside by the same patch of woods (and there's a lot of them too) is actually dubbed from a studio, again lending more to the bad porn vibe.

The plot is nonsensical, as many have pointed out. I'll defend vampires walking in daylight by the fact that despite it being popularized by Nosferatu, this was never originally an intrinsic part of the vampire mythos.

Speaking of vampire mythos, the writer had evidently read Carmilla, or at very least seen The Vampire Lovers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, swaying from impressed that a movie this dire has at least some aspirations to a Gothic novel I'm very fond of; or annoyed by its at best sledgehammer references and at worst total desecration of source material. At very least 'the General' is an insult to Peter Cushing though.

It gets two stars however, merely because I can't bring myself to vote one star for a film that has, or at least purports to have, both vampires and zombies in it. Incidentally I watched Lifeforce (another film that tenuously has vampires and zombies in it) on the same day as this, and despite being a rather flawed film itself, really comes out a masterpiece compared to this.

So in the end, this is not a film so bad it's good, or so bad it's in any way enjoyable, even drunk. It's just a mess, and worth no-one's time watching.