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

Answer: The only reason i am bothering to comment on this movie is to save you all 97 minutes of your life and maybe your money.

I bought it ex-rental for 3.00, it looked interesting, so i took a chance.

Within minutes of turning it on i realised i'd made a mistake. The entire cast should be stored away until winter and then thrown on the nearest log fire, where they could meet more of their kind.

As for the Devin Hamilton (Writer and Director), he should just be shot, sadly this should have been done before he made this rubbish.

Avoid this film, If you see it in the shops run away.

1/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Shallow, shallow script ...stilted acting ...the shadows of boom mikes lingering over the actors' heads in scenes ...worth watching because Kate Mulgrew plays the most selfish mother in TV movie history and it's all before Ben Affleck got his teeth capped.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.

This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.

I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term "It's so bad it's good", but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe "Hot Rods to Hell", but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.

As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?

The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.

Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Mimicking its long title the movie finds ways to come close to the 90' mark. The beautiful sets are here with all that made the Hamer production values a trademark, yet Paris drowned in the fog is a sign of indolent neglect. The story is obvious and can be summed up in a dozen words so there comes nothing unexpected and nothing worth more than 5% of your attention to be expected.

The directing is heavy as a direct transfer from the stage play, actors are mostly stiff as wax figures (ok this is a Hamer feature, only it's sometimes better featured in the whole package). My conclusion: this movie is trash, not worth the time I spend that evening. Eternal life is a boring matter and I should have hoped the guys in charge of programming at the Cinematheque would have known better.