Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I thought that Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 was quite a good horror film When a terrorist's body, infected with a stolen chemical, is recovered by the US military, the corpse is then cremated, releasing the virus into the atmosphere over a small island. Soon the infected locals turn into flesh-hungry zombies, and a group of soldiers on leave must team up with a group of tourists and board themselves up in a abandoned hotel as they try to fight off the aggressive living dead. I did not find this film to be as good as the original film, Zombie Flesh Eaters. But it was still an OK horror film with some good action. I did not think that it was one of the best in the series. 4/10

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In "The Secret Lives of Dentists," starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.

Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary "friend" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in "Fight Club").

While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.

By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. "The Secret Lives of Dentists" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I remember the days in which Kim Basinger was nothing more than a pretty face who adorned movies with typical characters of dumb Blondie,romantic interest or damsel in danger.But,everything changed when she won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the excellent movie L.A. Confidential,and I think I was not the only one who was surprised by her solid performance.However,after that moment,her career did not follow the ideal path.Sure,the prestige she won thanks to that movie made her to participate on moderately prestigious movies (like People I Know or The Door in the Floor),but we have never seen her again on a substantial character.The movie While She Was Out does nothing to put her on that situation; and it is not only that her character is not too tasty,but also that the movie is really crappy.The screenplay from this movie could not be more hollow and basic.However,Basinger brings some conviction to her character,and that makes this poor movie to win a few points.This movie is full of cliches and generic villains.The work of director Susan Montford is truly disastrous for many reasons but mainly,because the movie never gets a good rhythm and tone.The ending from this movie is extremely ridiculous.I do not recommend While She Was Out at all.This film commits the capital sin of being boring.