Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Moonchild is a very difficult movie to categorise. It's easiest to think of it as several snapshots of the lives of the two central characters. The fact that these characters are members of a street gang set in an multicultural city of the near future and that one of them is a vampire does not preclude them from having moments like any other people, and this is one of the places where this movie is different to anything else I've ever heard of. It doesn't get wrapped up in the fact that one of the main characters is a vampire, it's just something that has to be dealt with like any other problem. The way the characters interact is surprisingly realistic- there are embarrassing relatives and tricks that are meant to look cool that just don't work, which leaves the film with a lovely sense of not taking itself too seriously for the most part.

The other area that really stood out to me is the languages. The fictional city of Mallepa contains various cultural groups, and characters speak the language that they would be expected to speak. Japanese gang members speak Japanese to each other, but Chinese when talking to characters of Chinese descent. Possibly the most amusing exchange involves an Australian and is conducted in English. The actors of the four arguably main characters have three separate mother tongues between them and speak varying levels of each others' languages, so it's quite a feat that the movie was made at all. Which, I suppose, brings me to the lead actors.

Much has been made of the fact that the movie stars two of Japan's biggest rockstars, Gackt and Hyde, as well as Taiwanese superstar Lee-hom Wang, whether it is to praise them for their acting or criticise it or simply fangirl about them. In my opinion, Lee-hom is the best at playing a straight and realistic character. However, any lack of acting ability on Gackt's part is mostly masked by the fact that the character he plays is prone to being over-dramatic. I wasn't sure if Hyde's character was supposed to be as sulky and sarcastic as he came across, but it doesn't really detract from the movie either way.

There are several scenes which take rather melodramatic turns, which made it difficult for them to affect me much emotionally (Although this doesn't seem to stop a lot of people). I found it's best to just enjoy the movie for what it is and not take it too seriously- It's perfect for getting out and watching with a group of friends. It does have its flaws, but overall it was very enjoyable and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind a few subtitles.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.

I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Someone mentioned editing. This is edited badly and what started out as somewhat intriguing became an incomprehensible mess. For starters, let us know what it is you are trying to do with these experiments. Why are these people the best choices for the type of experimenting they are involved in? And, what exactly are they testing? Apparently there is some grand plan that some agency is going to exploit. The acting is pretty bad. Everyone is emoting. Everyone is keeping secrets. They frequently mention that if it weren't for the money, they'd hang it up. There's a deranged minister who spouts scripture. On and on. But, again, the biggest hang up is the lack of laying out a playing field for the actors. There are some really cheesy elements. Those little rooms and those chaise lounges. The awful wallpaper (was it wallpaper?). It was interesting, but didn't seem to go anywhere.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.

Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.

The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).

(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.