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

Answer: Evening is an entertaining movie with quite some depth. All the actors and actresses turn in spectacular performances. With the tremendous cast, though, one expects stellar acting, but in this movie the expectations are exceeded. One can relate to personalities and situations in ones own family. As one watches the interaction of the family members one's own family memories are immediately brought to mind. This is one of the few movies that inspires one to read the book. Usually it is the other way around; one reads the book and then wants to see the movie. I will definitely obtain a copy of the Susan Minot book and read it. The Rhode Island scenery is spectacular as is the soundtrack. Any car buff will enjoy the apparently expertly restored period automobiles. Needless to say now, but I recommend Evening highly. See it you will enjoy it.

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

Answer: As some other comments show, this movie might scare you, when you're a little child. (And that is probably all that it is good for.)

However, if you're older, this movie only does one thing: suck majorly -and thereby I don't mean the acting, its soundtrack, cutting or s.th. like that. I'm simply talking about the "plot" (if you can call it that).

SPOILERS ahead ------------------------

I don't want to give any more spoilers than necessary (if after reading this, you really still want to watch this movie) but if you graduated from any school, this is just a big insult of your intelligence. When watching this, I was stunned most of the time, because what was happening was just THAT stupid.

This includes:

-the forming of UNITE (an evil UN-association)

--> we are just supposed to believe it's evil. is it even evil at all? if so: why is it evil?

-the mark of evil in the form of a tattoo

--> there is no necessity to impose this on the people, so why the hell (no pun intended) are they doing it?

-inviting Christ to your heart merely as lip service

-->because there's nothing anybody, who in this movie is considered "a real Christian", ever does, besides saying that stupid prayer. so...just say that prayer before the rapture and you're saved - no matter what?!

Thus, rating 1/10

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

Answer: This movie was released by Roger Corman, so you know that the filmmakers didn't have much money to work with.

Although, some viewers may miss the subtleties in this movie because of the very typical "obsessed killer" type marketing approach, there are unique differences about this movie.

AMANDA, as played by the obviously talented Justine Priestley, is a complex character. Some people like these movies precisely because the violence can seem random, but here the ramifications of past abuse (dealt with in a realistic but tasteful manner) are what shape the psychosis of AMANDA. Surprisingly, Amanda redeems herself at the end with an act of love, where most of these movies turn into the typical, all out fight to the death and the evil character dies just as evil in the end as to begin with.

Some rough edges in this picture, but I have to give it 7 out of 10 stars based on its thoughtfulness and yes, originality as compared to the usual -- especially on a budget.

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

Answer:
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made.

This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.

But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poire the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.

Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poire takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.

A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?