Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.

Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.

Stephen King is simply illiterate in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.

True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of "Realism". But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.

Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.

At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.

Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.

What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting well, they can't actually hear him, you know he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.

Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.

Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.

But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.

In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.

And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.

Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.

Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Cafe to witness the Cinematographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumiere. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinematographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.

Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, "La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere" (literally "Exiting the Lumiere Factory") was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumiere factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic "actuality film" (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's "Peep Show" machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary.

"La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere" would become the first in the long series of "actuality films" that the Lumiere would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinematographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinematographe became a great success and "La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere" quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that "L' Arroseur Arrose" was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.

The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.

It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.
+++++++++
A:
negative