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

Answer: Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Watching beautiful women sneaking around, playing cops and robbers is one of the most delightful guilty pleasures the medium film lets me enjoy. So The House on Carroll Street was not entirely a waste of time, although the story is contrived and the screenplay uninspired and somewhat irritating.

There are many allusions to different Hitchcock pictures, not least the choice of Kelly McGillis in the starring role. She is dressed up as Grace Kelly, and she is not far off the mark. Not at all. But her character is not convincing. The way she is introduced to the audience, she should be someone with political convictions and a purpose in life. After all the movie deals with a clearly defined time period, true events and a specific issue. But the story degenerates within the first minutes into a sorry run-off-the-mill crime story with unbelievable coincidences, high predictability and a set of two dimensional characters. This is all the more regrettable, as the performances of the actors are good, as are the photography and the set design.

The finale in Central Station, New York is breath taking. It starts in the subterranean section and then moves up to the roof. The movie can be praised for its good use of architecture.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This pile of sh!t is tied in my book as the worst thing ever made. I can't BELIEVE that someone actually relased this CRAP, let alone acually MADE it. HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Not even worth mentioning the damn story or any details about it. THAT's how bad it actually is. Avoid it like SARS!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Possible SPOILERS: Not Sure

While watching The Lion King 1 1/2, I couldn't help but have mixed feelings about the whole film. It is definitely a good way to spend about an hour and 15 minutes. But there is nothing about it that would give you the same sort of feeling that The Lion King did. The story, for those who haven't read the other reviews, is about how Timon and Pumbaa meet, and how they affect events in the original Lion King.

There are actually some very funny jokes in the movie. My favorite part is when they show the pair raising Simba. However, for me the worst parts have to be when they show Timon and Pumbaa directly interfering with the events of the original. I can never look at the "Circle of Life" or "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sequences the same way again (I'm okay with the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" sequence).

The voice talents are excellent. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella do a wonderful job, as do Matthew Broderick, the guy who does Rafiki, and the hyenas. Even the actor who does young Simba sounded enough like Jonathon Taylor Thomas for me. But why did they even include a voice actor for Zazu? He literally had only 2 lines, and neither were very necessary. The additions of Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller only add to the talent, although you still can't hear Timon's Mom's voice and not think of Marge Simpson.

There are some scenes that seem to not fit in with the original, the one coming to mind being when they are pride rock at the end. How did they have time to fit in the initial fight with the hyenas?

As for the DVD itself, you can't help but feel that for a 2 disc set, the special features are especially lacking. They could have easily fit a commentary, or another aspect ratio on the 1st disc. I enjoyed the "Who Wants to be King of the Jungle" game, even if it is the most shameful example of cross promotion I've ever seen. Some of the questions are actually difficult.

Overall, a good movie, though not nearly as good as TLK or even TLK2.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: NO SPOILERS.

I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.

Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.

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

Answer:
I only saw this movie once, and that was enough for me. The movie has very little if any plot and seems to be nothing but continuous scenes of psycho-sadistic violence and very little of anything else. I wanted to see this movie because it starred Zoe Trilling of the second "Night of The Demons;" and I wanted to see her playing someone normal. Unfortunately, the Tobe Hooper script barely begins and goes nowhere as Robert Englund dominates the film and chews up the scenery and plot. Zoe, I know where you are now; hiding from this film !