Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy are both excellent actors, who can certainly rise to any acting challenge put to them.

Unfortunately 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' offers only one to both actors and audience alike: not to fall asleep during a mind-numbingly boring, very predictable and unimaginative story.

'Watching the Detectives (2007)' tries very hard to be funny, but the comedy is forced, extremely poorly directed and embarrassing to the verge of complete ridicule.

After a third of the film still nothing that may capture even the most willing audience, like the director's friends and relatives, is even hinted at, not to mention actually happening.

I'm pretty sure everybody who liked it faked it or had to fake it like Neil's ex-girlfriend did when he showed her an old B&W film she couldn't care less about. 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' is nowhere near category B, it falls somewhere between Q & R, like -Questions? and -Repress the questions! The director knows what he's doing! Well, if his goal was to bore the viewer to death, he has done a very good job!

'Watching the Detectives (2007)' was a complete waste of time for Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy, bur PLEASE don't let it be a waste of your time!

Rating: 0 out of 100.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Philo Vance (William Powell) helps solve multiple murders among the wealthy after a dog show.

Usually I hate overly convoluted mysteries (like this) but I LOVE this movie. It moves very quickly (only 72 minutes), is beautifully directed by Michael Curtiz (he uses tons of camera tricks that just speed the narrative along), has a very ingenious story line (including a solution to a locked room murder that was just incredible) and has a very good cast.

Powell is very suave and great as Vance--he doesn't seem to be acting--he IS Vance! Mary Astor isn't given much to do but she adds class and beauty to the production. Everybody else is very good too, but best of all is Eugene Pallette as Detective Heath. He's a very good actor with a VERY distinctive voice and some of his lines were hilarious.

Basically, an excellent 1930s Hollywood murder mystery. Well worth seeing.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.

If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Like all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.

The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.

The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Just recently, I've been obsessing over and anticipating this movie so much that I almost had to see it. Well, having just seen it today, the 5.8 rating is completely understandable. I think that if you anticipate something so much that it becomes a dire need, it turns out not to be worth it.

Sure, The Hills Have Eyes 2 has its moments. It has a very cool and well-developed storyline that ties in well with the actual product itself, but the whole thing is so self-indulged that it becomes so hard to follow. And if it weren't for Wes Craven's production on this film, it wouldn't be anything to do with The original remake.

But the whole thing makes you go "Is this supposed to be horror or COMEDY?" because there are lots of ridiculous, randomly placed jump moments and stupid one liners (I.E. "There's a hand in the sh**er!" or "You motherfu**er! I'll kill you all damn sons of b**tches!") and the acting (God don't even remind me how bad it was.

STORYLINE: (this part contains spoilers, beware!) The movie begins with a woman giving birth to a mutant baby (ooh la la!), and then the screen fades to black with the movie's title appearing, and a monologue. Then we go to this office where there are randomly placed war veteran mannequins. We find that this is for this one scientist keeping track of people looking for mutants. The box to keep track of audio feeds is gone, and everyone dies! After that tone-setting opening, you'd expect more.

Then, we go to this one team of military recruits training in Baghdad. As the captain parades them "A good job at stupidity", their last day of training is in New Mexico, the desert where the family in the last THHE had stayed because they were stuck. While in training, things go ultimately wrong, people die, and... do I need to tell you any more? Because right now I have the attention span of a goldfish just forcing myself to sit here and type this.

The thing that's wrong with THHE2 is that it just dosen't work. No flashbacks here, and the ending is pretty safe... but with a twist! A stupid one, that is. I'm pretty sure the Ultra Super Director's Cut with a holographic cover and a ticket to The Hills Have Eyes 3 will showcase all of it's alternate endings, but at this point, I'm not sure if I care.

So by all means, if you loved the first THHE so much it's almost a sin not to see this, then by all means, see it. But if else, then, Avoid at all costs. It's for your own good.

3/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...

It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.

The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.

I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.

(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)