Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.

It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.

It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".

It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.

None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.

Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.

4/10
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The first one was the best. The second one sucked because the dialog was terrible. Although, the storyline wasn't so bad (in fact, all story lines are good and bad). Throughout the movie, I dosed off a few times. I know that Jackie Chan is a great martial arts expertise, but not a good actor in Rush Hour 2. Chris Tucker, too, wasn't good. And Zhang Ziyi, what can I say, a few lines, terrible acting (But that's based on her script). All the characters there were not that good. But, some of the things I like in Rush Hour 2 is always the action and less sex scenes. I know that Jackie Chan doesn't do those things which is good for him.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.

Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.

This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.

Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.

'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliche in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.

Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliche. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.

'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.