Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.

It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame "judging" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel "The Forever War." It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and John Steakley's "Armor." And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.

Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's "Iliad." A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.

The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to "Terminator 2" a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.

Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I wish kids movies were still made this way; dark and deep. There was (get this) character development (and Charlie is the epitome of the dynamic character), plot development, superb animation, emotional involvement, and a rational, relatable, and consistent theme. If not for the handful of song-and-dance routines, you would never have thought this was a kids movie, and this is why I give it such a high rating. This movie is an excellent film, let alone for a kids' movie. Which brings me to my second point: this has got to be the darkest "kids'" movie I've seen in quite some time, this coming from a 22-year-old. I'd be shocked to see any child under the age of 8 not completely terrified throughout a great deal of the latter half and some of the first half of the movie, and it all ends with one of the saddest endings you could ever come across (ala "Jurassic Bark", for those of you who are 'Futurama' fans), and this is what makes this movie so good. Just because the movie universally evokes emotions we don't normally like to feel and assume are bad does not make the movie itself bad; in fact, it means it succeeded. Good funny movies are supposed to make us laugh; good horror movies are supposed to make us scared; good sad movies are supposed to make us sad. My point is, good movies are supposed to MOVE you, not simply entertain; this movie moved me.

Also, this movie is incredibly violent by today's standards for a kids' movie and contains subject matter that, by today's standards, may not be suitable for some children. Parents, I'd say watch it first. I'm not usually one to say anything about this kind of thing, but I just saw this yesterday and it came as a surprise even to me.