Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Easily the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Direction : none. Story: pathetic. Screenplay : that will be a good idea. There is a lot of gratuitous graphics, all of pathetic quality. Preserve your sanity, dont ever see this movie !
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...

While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...

Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...

Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...

Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...

It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...

Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...

Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...

Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.

Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.

Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.

I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Rather nasty piece of business featuring Bela Lugosi as a mad scientist (with yes, a Renfield-like assistant and his mother, a dwarf and yes, the scientist's wife (sounds like a Greenaway movie actually lol). Lugosi gives his wife injections from dead brides (why them? Who knows?) so that his wife can keep looking beautiful. He gets the brides after doing a pretty clever trick with some orchids that makes the brides collapse at the altar. After another bride bites the dust, a newspaper reporter just HAPPENS to be around for the scoop, and decides to snoop around for a story. She gets all sorts of clues about the orchids and Lugosi. Heaven knows where the police were. Soon she's off to Bela's lair, when she meets a sort of strange looking doctor who may or may not be eeeevil. It all cumulates in a totally far-fetched plan to have a fake wedding to capture the mad scientist, but it seems that the scientist has x-ray vision, as he foils her plans, Oh no! What will happen? I actually liked this movie as a bit of a guilty pleasure. Lugosi is great here, his hangers-on are all very very strange, the story is actually quite nasty in some places which makes it all most watchable. A fun little view.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Routine suspense yarn about a sociopath (Dillon) who gives his sperm to a clinic of human reproduction and starts to harrass the lives of the woman (Antony) and his husband (Mancuso). Extremely predictable, far-fetched and with undecided tone all the way. Don't lose your time with this one...make a baby instead!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
If this is all the Watchowski's have to offer in terms of a back story to the Matrix, than I really have to question the claims of all of the fans who believe that the movies are intended to register on a deeper level. The second renaissance, while visually stunning & beautiful is, story-wise cliched & ludicrous. How many times have we heard the story of humans relying too much on technology, humans all-too eager to make war, humans basically destroying themselves? There is nothing new here. And I have another question. Considering the plot of the second renaissance, doesn't that make the machines the good guys?! The machines are oppressed for generations by their cruel human overmasters. They fight back, win their freedom and seek to establish a peaceful harmonious coexistence with the humans, who reject them in favor of all-out war, which the cleverer machines naturally win. If this is the back-story, then we shouldn't be rooting for Neo, we should be rooting for the machines! The humans were cruel and oppressive, while the machines were courageous and attepted to be compassionate. Since I do not believe that the Watchowski's intend for us to favor the machines over the humans, I have to believe that the Second Renaissance was simply a misguided attempt @ creating a back-story.