input: I missed this movie in the cinema but had some idea in the back of my head that it was worth a look, so when I saw it on the shelves in DVD I thought "time to watch it". Big mistake!

A long list of stars cannot save this turkey, surely one of the worst movies ever. An incomprehensible plot is poorly delivered and poorly presented. Perhaps it would have made more sense if I'd read Robbins' novel but unless the film is completely different to the novel, and with Robbins assisting in the screenplay I doubt it, the novel would have to be an excruciating read as well.

I hope the actors were well paid as they looked embarrassed to be in this waste of celluloid and more lately DVD blanks, take for example Pat Morita. Even Thurman has the grace to look uncomfortable at times.

Save yourself around 98 minutes of your life for something more worthwhile, like trimming your toenails or sorting out your sock drawer. Even when you see it in the "under $5" throw-away bin at your local store, resist the urge!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Look, if I were interested in a Nancy Drew book, what I would do is pick up a book and read it. I'm not. Ever since I can remember I read people trashing movies because it wasn't like the book. I'm sorry - in the digital age we can no longer watch movies on flip books, however I'm sure you can still find a few short silent films in book form. When Lord of the Rings came out, people complained. When the third one won an Oscar - "The book was better." When I watched To Kill a Mockingbird, "the book was better." Now a bunch of people are upset, yet again, because Nancy Drew wasn't like the book. I'm not saying Nancy Drew is going to win any Oscars - if anything it'll be one of those Nickelodeon Blimps or Kids Choice Awards. I'm saying give film a break. It's film, not paper. As a movie, I found Nancy Drew quite enjoyable - featuring cameos from Bruce Willis and Adam Goldberg (The Hebrew Hammer) and supporting roles featuring Tate Donovan (Jimmy Cooper on the O.C.) and Rachel Leigh Cook (She's All That). This is the first time I've seen Emma Roberts in a movie and, frankly, I enjoy her work more than most of Julia and of Eric's; her character stays consistent throughout the film and reacts well with conflict. A lighthearted movie in the spirit of Harriet the Spy is nice now and again.

I give it ten stars because I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, would love to see it again, and will probably buy it upon DVD release.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I saw this movie by accident yesterday at a cinema. I had some hopes for the movie because I really like Spoorloos (The Vanishing) and the book it's based on. The movie starts out okay as it at first seems to be a nice thriller. Quickly though the movie becomes a mess with uninteresting plotlines, characters that are never fleshed out and nobody in the audience cared for (like Marjoke) and terrible editing. The movie has fade to black bits that are just way too long, a messed up chronology that jumps back and forth and lots of scenes that just don't add anything to the story and could easily have been dropped. After suffering through the story you'll get treated to one of the worst endings I've seen in a very long. It should also be mentioned that the movie has lots of explicit sex scenes which you're probably used to if you watch a lot of dutch movies. It's hard to mention any good things about this movie. About a third of the audience had already walked out of the theater halfway into the movie and I didn't hear a kind word after the movie was over. Avoid this movie at all costs. it really destroyed any faith I had left in the dutch movie industry.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.

Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative