Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Although George C. Scott is the only actor in this version of ACC without a British accent, he more than makes up for it with his over-the-top and larger-than-life interpretation of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Particularly effective is when he confronts Bob Cratchit in his office at the movie's end. As Scott stands before a large window, sunlight casts a glowing mantle over him; all you can see is his silhouette. Augmented by Scott's voice, a ponderous growl, the effect is galvanizing...much like Marlon Brando's first scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. "The Horror," indeed!

However, as they say, the very thing that works for you can also work against you. Because Scott displays such gleeful ferocity throughout the movie, it proves infectious. To put it another way, the "before" Scrooge is almost as charismatic as the "after," even though he really shouldn't be. It's what you might call the "Doctor Smith" effect, since Jonathan Harris used a very similar approach when playing that role and numerous other heavies (stage and screen alike).

Actually, I myself don't consider Scott's glib rage a liability. But other "Christmas Carol" purists might. See the film and judge for yourselves.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.

This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.

So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.

the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.