Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.

As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.

First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?

Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.

Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.

It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.

Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.

Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.

Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.

For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Only on a very rare occasion does an episode of the x-files fail to generate any excitement or does the episode contain anything which is just totally boring to watch.A detective and his former partner both die in unexplained circumstances.The deaths are linked to the presence of a little girl who was there when the deaths took place.Mulder has devised a theory that a policeman murdered by his colleagues has come back reincarnated as the little girl and is exacting revenge.Now for the bizarre bit.The little girl has no connection at all and seems to just a random person chosen as the reincarnation.I think this was slightly lazy writing by the writers and this episode ranks as one of the worst in x-files history!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Deaf secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is bullied by her mean spirited male colleagues.

When they suggest she needs an assistant it seems like the final insult, but, when the first applicant is ex-con Paul (Vincent Cassel) she seizes the chance to change her life.

Carla covers his mistakes and he, anxious to go straight, reluctantly helps her to take revenge on her colleagues.

When Paul asks Carla to return the favor, she finds herself drawn into the criminal underworld, ruled by ruthless lone shark Marchand (Olivier Gourmet).

Recognizing her ability to lip-read as a weapon no one will have bargained for, the two set out to see justice done.

French filmmaker Jacques Audiard's third feature "Read My Lips" is a genre-defying piece, switching from dark social comedy to visceral full-throttle thriller.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This two-parter was excellent - the best since the series returned. Sure bits of the story were pinched from previous films, but what TV shows don't do that these days. What we got here was a cracking good sci-fi story. A great big (really scary) monster imprisoned at the base of a deep pit, some superb aliens in The Ood - the best "new" aliens the revived series has come up with, a set of basically sympathetic and believable human characters (complete with a couple of unnamed "expendable" security people in true Star Trek fashion), some large-scale philosophical themes (love, loyalty, faith, etc.), and some top-drawer special effects.

I loved every minute of this.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.

Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.

Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.

Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.

It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.

If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other.