Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I haven't read through all the comments, but at least one poster mentioned that the 30 minute version might possibly be abridged. I'm curious about that myself because the later parts of the film just didn't make much sense to me even when I rewatched them. 30 minutes seems really short for a movie in 1917 also. "Poor Little Rich Girl" which was Tourneur's next film is 65 minutes long and "Pride of the Clan" which was his previous feature was 84 minutes long. So I'm relieved to see that I wasn't crazy, there must be part of this film missing and that's why the resolution didn't make much sense.

It's hard to review or comment on a movie that you're only able to see half of... but I would recommend this film anyway because of the really fascinating view that it provides us of the insides of an East Coast movie studio of the time. It's the earliest film I've personally seen that's based on the movie industry itself. The main character is a movie star played by Robert Warwick, who was later a mainstay Hollywood character actor and appeared in almost all of Preston Sturges' films. He plays a western actor perhaps vaguely modeled on William S. Hart, who Warwick does resemble somewhat. After the really fascinating sequences set in the studio we see them on a location shoot where he discovers a country girl (Doris Kenyon) and convinces her to come to New Jersey for a screen test which goes very poorly. After that point the movie seems to be missing major pieces in the form we have now.

Again, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in film history for the documentary value, but in the form we have it doesn't hold up much as a movie and isn't a particularly good example of Maurice Tourneur's work.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is actually an insult to the victims and their families of the BTK killer. The events in this movie are not even close to the truth. Why they couldn't make a movie of the real events doesn't make any sense since the real events are more interesting then this made up farce. Don't even waste your time watching this for free. Low budget and a shameful depiction of the events which should not be made a joke of, which is really what this movie did. If they would allow me to give a -10 to this movie I would. The acting sucked and it looks like it was shot on an old VHS video camera from the 80s. Save your time and money by not watching this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: i'm ask... what a f*** are whit the real-TV never i see some b******* in my life is: a******, dirty, f****** bad and other a******* things but anything more is just a piece of American s*** all time Britney saying ''oh s***, i wanna see his cock, i wanna f***, and stuck his d***'' and he thinking ''oh like i gone to still her money'' it's just another show of s*** any one more the only good are what Britney sell in interior clothes but noting special noting it's just like i say another s*** show in this s*** sill out the money pure sex all f******* time, i just see for i sleep on the before show for this i wanna my f****** money
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Although written by Stephen King, an overrated writer if there ever was one, this is actually quite entertaining B-movie. Vampiric, incestuous creatures who live in the candle-lit house and drain the life-force of virgins, great graveyard scenery, heroic cats and very pretty virgin. The soundtrack even has Enya's music, an idea which I found quite... nice. I'm sure King is disappointed to this little movie, although it HAS crappy dialogue and ideas, all of them from a true and tedious King potboiler. (Albeit Sleepwalkers, if I'm understood right, is a script without any novel or short story behind it). Still, those touches of sewer-odors show he DIDN'T use a ghost-writer after all...
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie is just funny. mindless, but funny. to enjoy this movie completely you can't have a perception of how a film like this goes and just enjoy all the side jokes and puns which are involved with the film. I still find the bit at the start funny when he says "want a beer........cock". funny stuff. but what makes the film decent is the fact that it doesn't try to hard to create a serious spin on the film, too many comedies try to have serious aspects which you just don't believe. But this is different and just focuses on being funny. I must say though, Yasmin bleeth is terrible in the film and adds nothing but the 3 main guys, coop, remer and squeak are very funny to watch and make the film great to watch
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect it to be and nothing more. Of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes.

The plot is basically about a group of National Guard trainees who find themselves battling against the notorious mutated hillbillies on their last day of training in the desert. It's just them fighting back throughout the whole film, which includes a lot of violence (which is basically the whole film) as blood and guts are constantly flying around throughout the whole thing, and also yet another graphic rape scene which is pointlessly thrown in to shock the audience.

I'd give the Hills Have Eyes II 4 out of 10 for pure entertainment, and that only. Although even then I found myself looking at my watch more and more as the film went on, as it began to drag due to the fact it continued to try and shock the audience with graphic gore and the occasional jump scene just to make sure the audience stays awake. The Hills Have Eyes II is just decent entertainment, something to pass time if you're bored, and nothing else.

4/10