An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a "horror film". I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.

Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look "normal" again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.

In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.

I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to "see it on a dare" or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.

Sad that Albertson was even involved.

An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The Dirty Harry series began with very gritty cop action, and was almost immediately lightened up for "Magnum Force". By the time that "The Enforcer" rolled around, Dirty Harry was little more than a television cop show (saved only by Tyne Daly). After a break of seven years, Dirty Harry has finally gone back to his roots. Maybe he's been gone for too long this time.

Clint Eastwood makes the first well-directed Harry film since Don Siegel made the first, which helps considerably. Harry is a darker character once again, not the nice cop he had become. He can once again say things like "Go ahead, make my day" and really mean it. "Sudden Impact" is a true Dirty Harry sequel. "The Enforcer" should never have been made.

7.2 out of 10

An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!