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

Answer: This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Like his earlier film, "In a Glass Cage", Agusti Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).

We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.

Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.

Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.

An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.

I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.

Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?

One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!

1/10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
My god, what's going on? a Uwe Boll film and positive comments? Wow!

Nice to note that most of the positive reviews are coming from newbies to Boll's work. I myself, as I have stated in previous Uwe Boll reviews, only watch his films in the hope that one day he will actually make something good. I mean..IT MUST HAPPEN ONE DAY!

Alas, Seed is not that day. I don't quite know where to start with the lame attempt at a horror film that Seed is. The thing to remember people is that all the sickos in the world are that way due to having watched various sick acts on video or the net.....or so Mr Boll believes. I still can't for the life of me figure out why footage of real animal abuse and killings was needed in the first 10 minutes of this film. I understand the concept that Seed (the killer) is a sicko and enjoys watching such stuff.....but can't understand why Mr Boll thought putting REAL footage in the film would work. Maybe to shock us? Hmmm.....well, I for one am not squeamish and can handle seeing anything on film. I DON'T though, find the use of real animal cruelty footage entertaining in the slightest. If you were trying to shock me, it didn't work. It just reminded me how messed up the world was because such things happen and also because Uwe Boll is allowed to continue making films. This sort of context may have worked for films in the 70/80's (Cannibal Holocaust) but not todays market.

With that out of the way, we can move on to the fact that Uwe has managed to give the film a very cheap feel all round like BloodRayne 2. You can just tell that there wasn't a huge amount of money floating around for production.

As per usual, Mr Boll does not really care for making a decent story as we are treated to boring shots of police officers watching various videos of Seed's victims in the first 25 mins. Each of these videos ends in a speeded up decomp of the victim. It's all very boring and tedious. I won't comment on the toddler scene as it's laughable and just another cheap 'shock' factor.

If you manage to sit through the first 25 mins then you will be treated to the police officers walking through a very dark house in order to catch Seed. The lighting here is horrible and Uwe has the old 'I'm not using a steady cam' fiasco that he did with BloodRayne 2. Watch as the police officers die in ever stupidly increasing ways until such point as Seed is caught. This scene is soooo bloody stupid you have to see it to believe it. The cop actually tells Seed he could have shot him. For some un-be-known reason, the cop doesn't shoot him. Given that Seed is a sicko that kills kids as well as adults, you'd have thought at this point in the script that sense would prevail.

From here we are treated to a stupid execution scene, followed by the cops burying Seed alive (and they know he is alive..why not shoot him in the head????), followed by Seed getting out of the ground and then killing some random woman with a hammer and then kidnapping the one of the cop's family.

What I'm trying to get across to you all here is that it's just plain STUPID! It's not even Hollywood horror stupid....just plain dumb. Uwe Boll can not direct ****. Anyone with any ounce of taste would agree with that statement. Anyone who watches this film and found it entertaining in any way shape or form needs to take a serious look at themselves as a person.

Once again we are treated to a poorly acted, directed, lighted, produced, scripted piece of UB crap.