Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.

At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).

So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.

I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.

None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all.

The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.

I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better.

I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.

3/10

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: i can't say i liked this movie very much.it has some amusing moments,but it doesn't seem able to make up its mind whether it is a comedy or a drama.it doesn't really work as either.it's too light in tone to be a drama,and the amusing moments are few and far between.it also doesn't make a lot of sense.things seem to happen for no reason.and it's also extremely convoluted.i feel like they just made things up as they were going.if they had just taken a bit of time to explain things,this might have been a better movie.i would say the ending was anti climatic, but that would mean the rest of the movie had actually been building up to something,which it didn't.it just sorts ends,and that's that.i didn't find it boring,really,but like i said,there there just isn't any point.i'll give Winter Kills a reluctant and weak 3/10

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless.

boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.

tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.

only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.

Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.

i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.

it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.

on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.

as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.

as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.

negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -

as it is, it's a real hoot.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Angela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.

The original "Sleepaway Camp" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip it.