Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I've seen enough of both Little Richard in interviews and in performances and enough of poor Leon pigeonholed into these 50s/60s musical bio pics to know that Leon was not the right actor for this role. Leon was so right as David Ruffin in The Temptations, but fails utterly to capture the essence of Little Richard in this film.

Actor Miguel Nunez who played Little Richard in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" was a much more suitable choice, having pulled off the musician's powerful but effeminate persona.

If the performances are unconvincing then the film will be as well. And this is what has happened here. Glossed over or missed entirely are LR's forays into homosexuality and voyeurism. What "The Temptations" did so well in capturing the rise of the group, warts and all, this film misses by a wide mark.

What is going on with director Robert Townsend who started off so well with "The Hollywood Shuffle"? He's a talented, funny guy but hasn't delivered anything near that first effort.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.

Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.

It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.

Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.

The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.

The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!

The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!

The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(

Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking".

Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!

Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!