An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: My god, what's going on? a Uwe Boll film and positive comments? Wow!

Nice to note that most of the positive reviews are coming from newbies to Boll's work. I myself, as I have stated in previous Uwe Boll reviews, only watch his films in the hope that one day he will actually make something good. I mean..IT MUST HAPPEN ONE DAY!

Alas, Seed is not that day. I don't quite know where to start with the lame attempt at a horror film that Seed is. The thing to remember people is that all the sickos in the world are that way due to having watched various sick acts on video or the net.....or so Mr Boll believes. I still can't for the life of me figure out why footage of real animal abuse and killings was needed in the first 10 minutes of this film. I understand the concept that Seed (the killer) is a sicko and enjoys watching such stuff.....but can't understand why Mr Boll thought putting REAL footage in the film would work. Maybe to shock us? Hmmm.....well, I for one am not squeamish and can handle seeing anything on film. I DON'T though, find the use of real animal cruelty footage entertaining in the slightest. If you were trying to shock me, it didn't work. It just reminded me how messed up the world was because such things happen and also because Uwe Boll is allowed to continue making films. This sort of context may have worked for films in the 70/80's (Cannibal Holocaust) but not todays market.

With that out of the way, we can move on to the fact that Uwe has managed to give the film a very cheap feel all round like BloodRayne 2. You can just tell that there wasn't a huge amount of money floating around for production.

As per usual, Mr Boll does not really care for making a decent story as we are treated to boring shots of police officers watching various videos of Seed's victims in the first 25 mins. Each of these videos ends in a speeded up decomp of the victim. It's all very boring and tedious. I won't comment on the toddler scene as it's laughable and just another cheap 'shock' factor.

If you manage to sit through the first 25 mins then you will be treated to the police officers walking through a very dark house in order to catch Seed. The lighting here is horrible and Uwe has the old 'I'm not using a steady cam' fiasco that he did with BloodRayne 2. Watch as the police officers die in ever stupidly increasing ways until such point as Seed is caught. This scene is soooo bloody stupid you have to see it to believe it. The cop actually tells Seed he could have shot him. For some un-be-known reason, the cop doesn't shoot him. Given that Seed is a sicko that kills kids as well as adults, you'd have thought at this point in the script that sense would prevail.

From here we are treated to a stupid execution scene, followed by the cops burying Seed alive (and they know he is alive..why not shoot him in the head????), followed by Seed getting out of the ground and then killing some random woman with a hammer and then kidnapping the one of the cop's family.

What I'm trying to get across to you all here is that it's just plain STUPID! It's not even Hollywood horror stupid....just plain dumb. Uwe Boll can not direct ****. Anyone with any ounce of taste would agree with that statement. Anyone who watches this film and found it entertaining in any way shape or form needs to take a serious look at themselves as a person.

Once again we are treated to a poorly acted, directed, lighted, produced, scripted piece of UB crap.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Markham," says urbane gentleman crime-solver Philo Vance (William Powell) to the district attorney, "I'm coming more and more to the belief that Archer Coe was killed in this room. That poker, this dagger sheath, now these fragments...it's all here." "But Vance," Markham says, "do you mean to tell me a dead man walked upstairs?" "I'm not trying to tell you anything but the facts," Vance says. "This is the most remarkable case in my experience."

We're sympathetic. Wealthy, arrogant Archer Coe, disliked it seems by all who knew him, had been found slumped in a chair in his bedroom, pistol in his hand and a gunshot wound to his head. But wait. Further examination shows Coe had been hit hard by a blunt instrument that fractured his skull. Then there's the dagger wound in his back. Complicating matters is that Coe's bedroom door and windows all had been locked from the inside. Coe was no suicide; this was murder. But how could the killer have escaped? What was the specific motivation since there are so many suspects? And why was Coe's brother, Brisbane Coe, found dead in the main-floor closet?

The Kennel Murder Case, now 73 years old, still provides a stylish look at the old locked- room classic whodunit. What makes it work as well as it does is, first, the mystery is complicated and clever, but still is logical. Second, is the amusing, assured performance of William Powell. Consider his work as Philo Vance as something as a rehearsal for his great performances as Nick Charles. Few things escape Vance. He uses his wits to piece things together. He's also good company. Powell was a star in the Twenties and moved steadily upward in status and popularity when the talkies took over. His intelligence, style and effortless sophistication have made him one of the most contemporary-seeming of actors from the past.

Also pleasant is seeing a few other great faces. There's Mary Astor as Hilda Lake, the young, resentful and potentially rich ward of Coe; Paul Cavanaugh as a titled Brit hovering around Hilda; Helen Vinson with her notably sultry and selfish manner (watch her really do her stuff in Vogues of 1938); Etienne Giraudot, a small elderly man as the fussy Dr. Doremus, whose job as coroner and medical examiner keeps taking him away from his meals; and Ralph Morgan as Archer Coe's private secretary. This movie has a high percentage of middle-aged men without an ounce of fat who can wear snug, English-cut tailored suits with ease. Most of all is Eugene Palette, with his noble belly and gravel voice, as Detective Sergeant Heath. Sergeant Heath and Vance are long-time acquaintances who actually seem to like each other.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Very nice action with an interwoven story which actually doesn't suck. Interesting enough to merit watching instead of skipping past to get to the good parts. Having Jenna Jameson and Asia Carrere helps liven it up, too. Jenna in that sweater and those glasses is just astounding! Worth picking up just to see her!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliche and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.