An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Stephen King was raised on flicks like this. -Flicks NOT films.

Movies like this and 'Jeepers Creepers' are "throwbacks" to the good 'ol day drive-in horror flicks. They are meant to be fun, cheaply made and hopefully: a few good scares.

Anyone looking for a theory on the human condition should pass on this creature feature because that's all this is... all it ever will be.

Stop trashing what has already deemed itself as trash. -Good, fun, trash!

If you enjoyed this I recommend: 'Jeepers Creepers' 'Jeepers Creepers 2' '30 Days of Night' 'Scarecrows'('88) 'They Live' 'Planet Terror' 'Death Proof' and 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch'
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is an hybrid creature born at Carl Macek mind. With Robotech the second generation (Robotech Masters) and Megazone 23 into one miserable movie, that have no logic! The story is very, very bad, and you cannot forgive the action of Megazone when have nothing to do with Robotech. If this movie have so high rank is for the TV series and not for itself!! I did said it, the name cannot save this!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one.

It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen.

Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.

In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.

Succinctness?

Soul?

Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Director Brian Yuzna has had an uneven career in the horror genre, creating masterpieces such as "Return of the Living Dead 3" or "Bride of Re-Animator", but at the same time he has done awful movies such as "Faust: Love for the Damned" or the mediocre "Progeny". He is obviously better in the seat of Producer where his work producing Stuart Gordon's films has been superb.

"The Dentist", is one of his lesser works as director, but the low profile it has benefits the film and its lack of pretensions makes it a very enjoyable experience. It tells the story of Dr. Alan Feinstone (played superbly by Corbin Bernsen), a successful dentist who one day discovers that his perfect life is not really as perfect as he thought when he discovers that his beautiful wife (Linda Hoffman)has an affair with the pool boy. This event disturbs his mind and puts him in a killing spree as he takes revenge on the world for being so "filthy".

The premise is very well handled by Yuzna, as he takes us on a ride following Feinstone's day of revenge. What makes this movie different from most slashers is that we are not in the victim's perspective, we follow Feinstone because he is the main character. We witness how he goes from respected professional to psycho murder in a day. Yuzna manages to give the movie the exact amount of suspense but adds a good dose of dark humor that really helps the movie.

Most of the success of the premise is in Bernsen's performance as Feinstone. He can make you feel sympathy and hate towards him at the same time, and the subtle humor his character has is another aspect that aids the film. The rest of the cast is not as good, and I think that their sub par acting hurts the film more than it should. A notable exception is Ken Foree, as the detective trying to catch Feinstone. While his part is quite small, he makes a great job with it.

With a dentist as killer, gory scenes are expected, and Brian Yuzna delivers great SFX in the correct amount. It's good to see that he does not go over-the-top with it as he usually do, and I dare to say that this is a highlight of the film. It has the exact amount of gore that is expected, nothing less and nothing more. Yuzna restrained himself of his common excesses and the result is great.

While this is not among Yuzna's most well-known films, I would say that it is one of his best. Sure, it is not classic material as his masterpieces, but it is a movie that entertains and never gets tiresome or boring. It is a low-budget simple film, but for what it is, I think it rocked. 7/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.

It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.

To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb.