Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: If you are a fan, then you will probably enjoy this. If you don't know who Misty Mundae, Darian Caine, Ruby LaRocca, or Seduction Cinema are, this is not the movie to start out with. It's very cute, silly, the girls are hot, and it's fun to watch. There's no sex whatsoever until the very end of the 45 minute film, but the score is cheesy-trippy and the plot's not a total bore. Misty Mundae's makeup is bad in this movie and her hair is in awkward braids, so she's not as hot in this as she has been in others. But her panties in this are quite cute (you'll just have to see the movie for that to not sound really weird). If you do like this one, you will probably enjoy "That 70's Girl", "Vampire Vixens", or "Erotic Survivor" (which is a bit more sexually graphic). If you prefer watching Misty or Esmerelda in less sexual, more horror/exploitation-based (but lower budget) movies, check out the Factory 2000 website.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...

But about the movie. Cliches galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.

The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.

However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. "Basic Instinct 2" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica "Basic Instinct" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since "Instinct 2" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.

The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.

And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this "Instinct". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. "Instinct" is a compelling torture.

To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. "Instinct 2" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you....

"Basic Instinct 2" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I love this show and my 11 year-old daughter and I LOVE watching it together. It teaches good old fashioned values in a fun, adventuresome and entertaining way (albeit with a somewhat predictable story most of the time). It's also really fun to make fun of...you know, rewind and insert your own dialog, in place of the actors'.

I have my DVR set to record all the episodes and I happened to catch the tail end of an episode (just prior to the next one starting...so I don't know what episode it was) but there was an absolutely TERRIBLE sequencing mistake! Adam had handed Sheriff Coffee a small swatch of "leather", which was torn from some outlaw's coat as he tried to make his getaway, I suppose.

Well, Roy happened to have the coat, so he laid it out on his desk and placed the swatch right where it had been torn from. The swatch was EXACTLY rectangular...which I reckon would be nearly impossible to tear from a piece of leather (post-1950's Naugahyde? Yes. Leather? I don't think so). Well, the swatch lined up perfectly and the mystery was solved.

Not 10 seconds later in the scene, we see the coat again, still lying on Roy's desk. But this time the swatch is more like the shape of North Carolina and is now in a COMPLETELY different place on the coat (but still perfectly aligned with the hole in the coat) and the seam (which WAS smack-dab in the middle of the swatch) is now gone...as is the seam in the coat. My daughter enjoyed a good laugh as we played the short scene over and over and over again! It's prime for youtube, I tell ya!

We still totally LOVE the show though and the sequencing errors make it lots of fun!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Walter Pidgeon is Braley Mason, a civil attorney who takes on a criminal case in "The Unknown Man," a 1951 film also starring Ann Harding, Barry Sullivan, Keefe Braselle, and Richard Anderson. A great believer in justice, Pidgeon accepts a pro bono case defending a young man, Rudi Walchek (Braselle) accused of murder and gets him acquitted. Shortly afterward, he realizes that the man is guilty and was extorting protection money from his victim as well as other shopkeepers in the neighborhood. He is advised by the DA (Sullivan) that Rudi is small change, that to wipe out the organized crime, one has to find the top man. Mason finds the top man, and is faced with a dilemma.

"The Unknown Man" is a small, black and white film that manages to hold the viewer's interest with its various plot twists, though the plot is somewhat contrived. It's really the story of a good man seeking his god, justice, and what he is willing to do in order to attain it. And that's the most contrived part of all. I suppose there was a time before O.J., the Menendez Brothers, etc., etc., when people believed in justice and the integrity of attorneys. For this viewer anyway, those days are long over.

Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job -- his handsome, elegant demeanor and declamatory voice show us a successful, confident man but also a deeply caring one. Pidgeon had a magnificent career spanning 60 years but never really rose to superstardom. He was a solid actor who could play just about anything and did. It may be because by the time he was getting leads, he was well into his thirties and missed being a matinee idol; or it could be he lacked that certain something; or that he was typed early on as second lead to a big female star like Greer Garson. Hard to say. He gives an honest and touching performance here.

Very good movie with good performances.