Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I am surprised at IMDb's low rating of this movie. With all due respect, its low rating is representative of the IQ level of those who rated it so poor. They would rather see a movie with cheap thrills, a bigger budget, and more gore.

The first misconception by people is that this is a horror film. It is not, nor does the film mislead you into believing it is one. It is a psychological thriller. It is for people who actually want an intellectual experience when watching a movie. Reel.com's review is the perfect example of how I feel about this movie. All the other negative reviews doesn't make much sense. It's almost as if trying to make an original movie for a change- very rare these days- is something bad and not worth it.

I will reveal some spoilers for the morons who said it was boring and didn't make sense. Martha was brainwashing herself and performing experiments on herself to be a caring mother while she really was an evil Nazi who would kill without warning. The evidence is all in the pudding and the fact that at first viewing, we sympathize with this cold-blooded monster for the duration of the movie is a testament to the film's direction and writing.

I definitely feel that this movie should at least be rated in the 6's range on originality alone. I recommend this movie for the people on the other end of the IQ scale- aka smart people- since this movie is obviously being butchered by those who would rather watch Scream or Freddy's Nightmare.

Kudos to the acting as well. For such a low budget film, you are amazed that this movie didn't hit your local cinema with the great direction, writing, and acting. Please don't be fooled by the rating by IMDb. This movie is worth it. I actually recommend buying the film since a first viewing on a rent will not do this justice.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: SPOILERS

A buddy of mine said NEXT MOVIE was the best Cheech & Chong flick and went out of his way to have me borrow it and THE BLUES BROTHERS. NEXT MOVIE has no plot, has no pacing, really has no anything of what defines a movie ... but it is funny. And for what it is worth, Cheech and Chong show some heart.

Well, in this little paragraph I put in the plot, but being that four-fifths of the movie, nothing happens that would usually start a story. I will just say that Cheech 's cousin shows up.

Was there no other funnier moment when Chong made Cheech drink the pee twice? What about the rooster? Was that Pee-Wee Herman's first movie appearance? You would have to watch the movie yourself to enjoy it. I don't think NEXT MOVIE has strong enough balls to make it awesome, but the movie has heart and hey, my buddy let me borrow it so it gets a 7.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is the best movie I've ever seen!

Maybe it's because I live just a few miles from the village were the story take place, and I know how things work out in this area in Sweden. The movie tells the truth, believe me! It both criticizes and honors the lifestyle of Dalarna, and the producer wants people who watch the movie to be more opened minded and care more for your closest friends and relatives.

But if you live in another small village anywhere in Sweden (or another country) you will probably also recognize much from this movie.

Thank you Maria Blom!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Two thirds of nearly 2,000 IMDb users who have voted on this film have rated it at 8, 9 or 10 and one user reports wearing out six videotapes (Was this a record, or merely a faulty VCR?). Although the film is primarily intended as a period piece it clearly has a quite unusual fascination. But for some reason I imagined it as largely whimsy and until recently never felt the urge to watch it. My mind was changed by Elizbeth Von Arnim's original book. My wife loves reading but her sight no longer allows her to read much so she borrowed it in talking book form. Such books are usually irritating to a companion who is busy with other things, but I gradually came to appreciate that this one was seductively soothing, although in no way syrupy, and was also very well written. I realised my wife would enjoy watching the film, and so decided to buy her the videotape. I am now very glad that I did, and would certainly recommend its purchase to anyone else who appreciates a quiet reflective work with no fireworks but with well constructed character development and a very successful pre-Mussolini Italian atmosphere. The story is set in the immediate post WW1 period and starts with two married London ladies who decide to pool their savings and enjoy a holiday together, away from their families, in a rented villa in Italy. Force of circumstances lead to this couple being joined by two others with very different characters and backgrounds. Its theme is essentially no more than the interactions that take place as their holiday progresses, not only between these four very disparate mature ladies, but also with the occasional male visitor. If you want action, thrills, dramatic sex scenes, natural or man-made disasters, or Harlequin style romances this would not be the film for you. But IMDb users have collectively and very emphatically demonstrated that none of these are necessary for a film to prove highly rewarding to watch, and if you care to give it a try you may, as I did, come to rank it among your much loved films.

It is fairly rare for me to watch a film of a book with which I am already familiar. In many cases I find this takes some of the pleasure away from watching the film, but here there is such a strong visual appeal in the setting that I actually found my pleasure augmented by the anticipation of seeing the next segment of the book, effectively unrolled before my eyes. (Perhaps Italy itself has some part in this, the last time I had this experience was when I was watching tales from Boccaccio's Decameron on TV.) Generally films of books tend to increase the dramatic level of the original work to ensure that the filmed version has an even wider appeal, but here if anything it is reduced in order to keep the viewers attention on the gradual character development rather than on any background events. This works very well, although changes from the book are few and basically the film remains true to the original story. Great credit is due to the Director, Mike Newell, and all members of the cast, particularly those well known British Actresses who play the four principal ladies.