Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Every child experiences trauma growing up and every child's active imagination has gotten the best of them, but for Jake (Anthony De Marco of the forthcoming Clint Eastwood film CHANGELING - who resembles Henry Thomas circa 1982) the combination may prove deadly.

A lonely six year old whose imagination kicks into high gear when he is crestfallen to learn his quarrelling parents Peter (Sean Bridgers, late of "DEADWOOD") and Jules (Brooke Bloom, "CBS: Miami") suddenly decide to divorce, leaving him to his own devices and unleashing a new tenant a zombie in his closet.

Jake actually gets this seed planted while playing with neighborhood friend Dillon (Matthew Josten) who provides him with a print out off the internet of FAQ re: zombies. Jake is so convinced that one is out to get him and his family he begins to hatch a plan of action to protect them before it's too late.

Indie newcomer Shelli Ryan who wrote and directed blends domestic drama with underlings of horror but the former (smartly) outweighs the latter, with a decent story buoyed by fine acting(De Marco is the rare breed of child actor where he is a CHILD and not 'acting' - all his nuances are very evident of the awkward, shy, introverted child that many can relate too (I certainly can). Bridgers makes his cheating husband empathetic in the realization he really loves his son while Bloom has the more difficult job of building sympathy as the somewhat lackadaisical mother who is quick to emotions over rationality it doesn't help when Dillon's mother Ruth (Monette Magrath, who resembles Laura Dern) is constantly feeding her implied information driving a wedge between Jake and his dad. Magrath also has a tough task to make her manipulative character relatively likable but she proves to in a revealing scene that I won't go into detail but shows why she is the way she is (and more importantly how she has also affected her own child).

The fillmmaker's subjective camera is also well employed (many angles shown form Jake's POV at waist-level or somewhat skewed; i.e. the upside down shot of Peter carrying his son in the same position while having some fun in the backyard), and the editing is relatively flawless.

Ryan based the screenplay on personal experiences growing up and also witnessing first hand account of a friend going through the same situation and how the affects of adult relationships can be harmful if inflicting their fears, anger and stress onto their children. Here the film is very successful in getting its theme across.

However the horror underpinnings are a little disjointed to say the least but the homage to George A. Romero's zombie films are shown lovingly by Ryan (Jake's mom is asleep in front of the TV as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD unspools, causing his own belief of the undead to be in their home). The metaphor of a monster acting as surrogate to domestic abuse may be a bit heavy-handed but again, the child's fear of a thing under his bed is universal.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is really bad,so bad that even Christopher Lee cannot save it.A poor story an even poorer script and just plain bad direction makes this a truly outstanding horror film,the outstanding part being that it is the only horror film that i can honestly say i would never ever watch again.This garbage make Plan nine from outerspace look like oscar material.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!

I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.

This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.

There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.

The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.

I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk.