Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:

Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are "getting to know each other," bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, "Have you heard of the HIV virus?" and it sounds about as natural as asking, "Have you communicated with the nine alien races?"

Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).

Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: "They don't work, man!" Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas.

Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.

In sum: Beware!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: - Contains miner spoilers -

I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as "No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead" is of movie quality.

This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).

The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).

The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.

I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.

It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell.

For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.

Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Dressed to Kill starts off with Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) having a sexually explicit nightmare, later on that day she visits her psychiatrist Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) for a session in which she admits to be sexually frustrated & unfulfilled in her current marriage. Kate then visits a museum & picks up a stranger, they go back to his apartment for casual sex, when done Kate is set to leave but is attacked & killed in the buildings elevator by a razor blade wielding blonde woman. Prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) discovers the gruesome scene & sees the killer but manages to escape. Detective Marino (Dennis Franz) says he suspects Liz as being the killer as there are no other witnesses so Liz teams up with Kate's son Peter (Keith Gordon) to track down the real killer, clear Liz's name & see that justice is done...

Written & directed by Brian De Palma I thought Dressed to Kill was a good solid psychological murder mystery. The script is measured & slow at times but it likes to focus on the character's so you really know them, the entire first twenty minutes is just developing Kate as a character before she is suddenly killed off, then the film switches it's attentions to Liz & no one else gets a look in. This way Dressed to Kill is quite absorbing & engaging, unfortunately the character's themselves aren't exactly likable. I found some of the dialogue quite funny at times, especially the dirty talk that Liz spouts occasionally. The killers motives are somewhat plausible but I guess you'd have to be pretty messed up to do anything suggested in Dressed to Kill. It's a good film but it didn't excite me that much & I didn't really find any character to root for or like. The film tacks on a needless & unnecessary twist ending that I didn't really see the point of.

Director De Palma directs with style & visual flair, from the art museum sequence to a car chase & as a whole it's impeccably filmed throughout. I'd imagine that every shot in Dressed to Kill had a great deal of thought put into it. I felt the film was a bit flat & uninspired at times though, nothing about it really excited me that much. There is a fair bit of nudity, some sex & rape along with a few bits of gore & violence, Kate's murder by razor blade in the elevator being the highlight, if that's the right word. However, it's by no means as shocking or controversial when viewed today as many would have you believe.

With a supposed budget of about $6,500,000 Dressed to Kill has that glossy high production value feel of a Hollywood film. The New York locations are nice, the cinematography is good & as a whole it's extremely well made. I thought the music was inappropriate & was far to loud & intrusive. The acting is OK but despite his top billing I didn't think Caine had that much screen time. Allen was married to director De Palma at the time Dressed to Kill was made, interestingly out of the four films she appeared in made by De Palma in two of them, this & Blow Out (1981), he cast her as a prostitute... A body double was used for Dickinson as she pleasures herself in a shower at the start.

Dressed to Kill is a good thriller that is well worth watching but I didn't think it quite lived up to it's lofty reputation. Good but not brilliant.