input: How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.

Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: There are two movie experiences I will always cherish. The first was seeing "Star Wars" for the first time at the age of 10 with my little brother. A close second is sneaking into Halloween at the Tripple Plex with my good friend, Trevor, in late October 1978. Halloween left me breathless, speechless, and downright scared. Everyone knows the story. Young Michael Myers decides to kill his sister on Halloween 1963. He escapes a mental hospital 15 years later to return to Haddofield to wreck havoc once again. He spots Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a shy senior who enjoys babysitting, and begins stalking her. Her partying friends across the street are killed, one-by-one as Michael sets his plot to get her. Ironically, the young boy she tends on Halloween is afraid of the "Boogeman," and can see him outside. During the murder spree, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) works hard to find Michael before he unleashes his fury. He has no proof, no evidence, just a hunch he has to sell to Sheriff Bracket (Charles Cyphers). As the plot unfolds, you have a suspense-driven movie instead of a cheap thrill scare. Alfred Hitchcock once said, "You can have four men at a table playing cards and they don't know there is a bomb and it goes off. That is a cheap thrill. However, put four men at a table who discover a bomb and discuss what to do about it--then it doesn't go off, then you have suspense." Director John Carpenter takes that advice to the hilt in Halloween. The audience will see glimpses of him outside, watching, stalking his victims. We gasp. Will he kill her? When will he kill her? Then, Michael disappears. Carpenter also uses the suspense in lieu of special effects that usually highlight the gore. This movie has little blood, but still provides good scares. One of the best scenes is Michael lifting Bob off the ground. He rears the knife back as it glints off the moonlight, then he drives it. All you hear is a loud thud, then the audience sees Bob's feet drop lifelessly. Carpenter was the first to use a vantage point from the scene of the killer. This also peaks our audience. What will he do? What's going on inside his mind? Finally, Carpenter's hauntingly masterful score adds to the tension. Moreover, the tandem screen writing he did with Debra Hill gives us a story which develops characters we care about. The teens are not "party mad," but merely going through the rebellious angst of teenage wasteland. Finally, there is some decent acting in this "B," low-budget thriller. Nick Castle who plays "the Shape" (Michael) adds something to the mindless killer. It is cold, merciless, and without any pathology. Moreover, the personality does everything the same way. He kills only when trapped, or to set up a trap. He splits the victims apart. He also relies on brute strength. And that mask used (a bleached William Shatner mask) gives an impression of something that has no soul or emotion. While Pleasance is melodramatic in his deadpan monologues, he comes across as someone scared, desperate, and determined. It made me wonder if he represented modernism's fading attempt to explain evil. The crown jewel, though, is Jamie Lee Curtis' debut. She plays the Laurie character as someone scared, but also determined and strong who fights back. The end is one that left me speechless. This was the first concept of an indestructible serial killer who could not be stopped. Movies like Star Wars have the advantage that it can be enjoyed numerous times. Halloween, and other scary movies, though, do not have that advantage. So if we could erase our minds of the first time we see a movie to experience it again as fresh and new, Halloween would be the movie I would choose.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: A mess of genres but it's mainly based on Stephen Chow's genre mash-ups for it's inspiration. There's magic kung-fu, college romance, sports, gangster action and some weepy melodrama for a topping. The production is excellent and the pacing is fast so it's easy to get past the many flaws in this film.

A baby is abandoned next to a basketball court. A homeless man brings him to a Shaolin monastery that's in the middle of a city along with a special kung fu manual that the homeless man somehow has but can't read. The old monk teaches the boy but expires when he tries to master the special technique in the manual. The school is taken over by a phony kung fu master who is assisted by four wacky monks. The new master gets mad at the now 20+ year old boy for not pretending to be hurt by the master's weak punches and throws him out for the night. The boy is found throwing garbage into a basket from an incredible distance by a man who bring him to a gangster's club to play darts. This leads to a big fight, the boy's expulsion from the monastery and the man's decision to turn the boy into a college basketball sensation.

Al this happens in the first 20 minutes with most of it happening in the first 10 minutes. Aside from the extreme shorthand storytelling the first problem is how little we get to know the main character until way into the movie. The man who uses the boy is more sharply defined by the time the first third is over. The plot follows no new ground except for the insane action climax of the film. I'm sure you can easily imagine how the wacky monks will show up towards the end. The effects, photography and stunt work are all top- notch and make up for the uninspired plot.

Stephen Chow has a much better command of plot and comedy writing and this film will live in his shadow but that's not a good reason to ignore it. It's quite entertaining even with a scatter-shot ending. Recommended.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Another wonderful Patterson book made into an incredibly awful movie. If the big budget movies don't work then why make a low budget made for t.v. movie that's 10 times worse! I am desperate for a good movie that will do ONE of his books justice!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative