Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Sleepwalkers are creatures who drain the life force completely out of humans to survive...but they can only use virgins (it's not explained why). Charles Brady (Brian Krause) is one such who needs to feed his mother Mary (Alice Krige). He goes after likable Tanya (Madchen Amick). Will she escape?

On one hand this is a GREAT horror film. Fast-paced, plenty of blood and gore and a nice, twisted sense of humor. There are plenty of in joke references for horror buffs (Castle Rock is mentioned once). Also Krause is excellent (who would have thought he could act after "Return to the Blue Lagoon") as is Kirge and Amick. But I find this film annoying.

It was written for the screen by Stephen King and it's maddeningly vague. The sleepwalkers are never fully explained. Where are they from? Why are they called that? Why does the son have to feed the mother? Why do cats hate them and can kill them? What are their powers after all (at one point Krause makes a car disappear AND change color and style!)? Why do they need to feed off peoples' life force? Why does it have to be only virgins? Why is the son having sex with his mom? None of these are explained leaving the story confusing. It's really too bad because, those questions aside, this is an excellent horror film. Excellent makeup and special effects too.

Fast, gory and lots of fun. If only the script were better. Also a fairly explicit sex scene between Krause and Krige was edited (you can tell) to get an R rating. I can only give this a 7.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....

Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?

Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.

One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life.

Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating.

Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie is not as horrible as most Sci-Fi Channel movies. I am used to seeing the gray CGI blobs and the amateurish special effects such as close-ups of fake blood that make it very obvious that the blood is strawberry syrup or some other syrup variation. However, I had thought that I had seen all the possible lows that the Sci-Fi Channel could hit. Then I saw this movie.

Imagine a hand inside a rubberized sock that is glazed with syrup? Those are the main Alien Vampires in this movie. You can clearly see the fingers inside the rubbery sock puppets. A talking hand comes out of the guts of victims, and the Vampire who is on the Vampire Hunter's team can talk to these Rubber Sock puppets in Transylvanian. How did Alien Vampires learn Transylvanian? And isn't Transylvania in Romania? So shouldn't they be talking Romanian? Why would some little town have their own language? If you can suspend your gag reflex and get past the talking rubber socks with the fingers clearly moving inside the Aliens' heads; then you have to deal with the other alien vampires. There are the "Leatherfaces" who like to wear the faces of their victims. Then there are the just plain ugly ones that all seem to have a lot of facial scars. Then there are the annoying Valley Girls and their boyfriends who are human traitors and sneak into space colonies so that they can sabotage the Defense Systems so that these Space Vampires can attack.

Finally, if you think all of the above is funny and worth a laugh, you have to deal with the third rate cast of Network TV rejects that make up this team of stereotypical angry heroes which are constantly fighting among themselves. Why does almost every Sci-Fi Channel movie have to use lead characters that are annoying, abrasive, crude, or just totally unsympathetic? I found myself hoping the talking rubber socks would win.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is simply one of the finest renditions of Dicken's classic tale. The script very accurately follows the story originally penned by Dickens, and captures a perfect balance between a film atmosphere and a play atmosphere. Viewers fond of either format will find enough of the story rooted in their presentation style of choice.

George C. Scott brings a delightfully realistic approach to the character of Scrooge, and is very convincing in the character development instigated by the visits of the ghosts. I found that he was able to win me over to the point where I sympathized with the old miser, something rarely done in other versions. The superb job done by the supporting actors add greatly to this production, which is simply the most enjoyable of all the Christmas Carol versions I have seen.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).

Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!