Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This movie is so bad, it's comical. In fact, Mystery Science Theatre 3000, the television show in which three characters watch and parody bad movies, used this very film to mock. I suggest watching it (maybe on YouTube) instead of actually seeing this movie.

Please, do not see Hobgoblins if you're not prepared to stop within the first scene. Actually, do not see this movie, period. Please. At least not seriously. Its jokes are not funny (to say the least), and you'll have much more fun parodying or watching a parody of it then viewing the movie.

You may feel yourself becoming sick upon watching, so spare yourself. Read a book. Do the laundry. Anything is more fun than watching Hobgoblins.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Walking home after the film, I was humming the familiar waltz music that Natalia and Alexandre were dancing to. I've heard that before - where? Ah, from Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" (track 2), 'got it just as I arrived at the door. It's "Waltz No. 2 from Jazz Suite No. 2" composed by Dimitri Shostakovich, performed here by The City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra. Yes, I went and picked up the soundtrack from Tower's. What a treat! The film score by Alexandre Desplat was fulfilling - there are fifteen tracks besides two tracks of the delightful waltz. It's not often these days we get a soundtrack entirely dedicated to a comprehensive film score. Reminds me of favorite scores by Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone (beginning notes of track 6 have traces of "Nuovo cinema Paradiso"), Georges Delerue, and John Barry. There are subtle nuances of strains and notes from the strings, celeste, piano, and harp.

Emily Watson and John Turturro delivered a credibly consuming paired performance. The love story, their intimate connection, is very much between Alexandre and Natalia - his childlike yet tormenting inner world, and her generous and bold understanding of him - a relationship alone to them both. Director Marleen Gorris of "Antonia's Line" (1996 Academy Award's Best Foreign Language Film from the Netherlands) gave us a quietly sensitive film - not without its unsettling human conflicts, intrigues, obsessions, family strives, lovingness and respect. The front-end subject is the mind-game and mathematical logic of chess. Beneath it can be a mild tearjerker of a drama set in the late 1920's. Cinematography captures the serene beauty of Lake Como in northern Italy near the Swiss border.

I highly recommend the soundtrack if you don't feel like going to the movies. Alexandre Desplat's lyrical film score of "The Luzhin Defence" is complete.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I jumped at the chance to view this movie uncut and uninterrupted, remembering rahs and raves for it. But wherever it seemed about to slip into being truly scary, it backed off and went somewhere else. The dripping water throughout the house, the black rain, the prophetic dreams, taking the wrong turn in raw sewage were dropped before they could work up to a scream.

What a disappointment. Chamberlain's nearly expressionless mask of a face offered little but confused disbelief, something I found myself mirroring as the film wore on. What could have been eerie Aboriginal chanting and instruments in the background were instead a cacophony seemingly designed to beat terror into one's head. The ideas that modern people can embody ancient gods, that the Aboriginal peoples believe red-haired white men were the first priests, and many other possibilities are passed along more like a shopping list than a hint at another dimension (the Dream Time).

[SPOILER] In the final scene, it wasn't clear to me what the director was trying to tell. Is there a big wave? So what? How big? A tsunami? Yeah, okay. That's devastating but not apocalyptic. Is it the end of the world? From a wave? The last wave? That'd have to be a pretty darn big wave. Why? Was the world that bad a place? It didn't seem so awful in this movie. Actually I didn't think the wave came off, since the shadow left Burton's face that had been cast by the wave. Was it only Burton's apocalypse? Heck, that happens every day to people who lose it. It wasn't of any interest if it was only him.

The most frightening scene, and the one that gives the best indication of Weir's potential, was in Charlie's apartment where Burton has gone to confront the old man for scaring Burton's wife. Charlie keeps asking him "Who are you?" and it becomes truly disturbing after a while. Unfortunately, the movie never followed suit.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.

This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.

Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.

I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.

7/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Wow...OK. So, after reading the little feud on here, I decided I had to see this movie for myself. This movie is HORRIBLE. I stopped watching it. I strongly recommend cleaning a closet instead of watching this movie, you'll be more spooked/entertained.

It's low budget with bad acting.

Whoever is giving this movie 10s is completely incorrect and should be disregarded.

I am in no way connected to any of the other reviewers.

Simply put, this movie is not worth watching.

Very, very BAD MOVIE.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Watching this again recently, I found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen, even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. By any objective measure this was a disaster, but I found it easy to imagination how good a Lord of the Rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely - and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. Unfortunately, thanks to Jackson, that will not be possible for a long time.

Watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all, then this story simply couldn't be stuffed up. Fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. There were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that Peter Jackson did it, although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. The way they tried to show the wraith world from Frodo's point of view for example. Or the way that Galadriel showed Sam what was happening back home for another.

Another thing I really appreciated in this version - the silent moments. There were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back-drop. Compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the Jackson films, and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. Jackson's films were full of their own importance, this was quieter and a lot more modest.

Jackson and co hit this with more than US$270 million dollars in production costs, at least $90 million dollars more for marketing, a massive tax break from the NZ government, and also gained massive savings from filming in NZ not the USA. However, despite the marketing claims, the intention to be faithful was never there. This is well documented. Philippa Boyens said as much in an interview, when she said they deliberately didn't re-read the books before writing the script. Jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film "along the lines of" the lord of the rings, and that the one he really wanted to do was Return of the King, because it had a lot of battles but no character development.

In contrast, this film tried to be more true. Of course a lot of things were wrong, the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything, and the pace was too fast. Naturally they cut a lot, and adapted other scenes, and for this they deserve credit. While Jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose, Bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. There's actually a curious similarity between the structure of the Jackson and Bakshi films near the beginning - in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way - although of course some of this could be coincidence.

This was not a good film, but the potential was there. Bakshi said in an interview to the Onion AV club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. His version didn't work, but he might have been right.