Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: 'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.

Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliche's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.

Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I should say right away that I checked the spoilers box only because I'm giving this comment the amount of thought proportional to what this mess of a movie deserves, and don't want to be held responsible for some plot point incidentally slipping out.

This comment will take the form of a tirade for the simple reason that I am still under the influence of this movie, having just watched it, and the unique effect this has renders one incapable of the sort of forethought and paragraph structure required for coherent, reasoned criticism. That is not a compliment. It isn't the narcotic effect of a truly hypnotic or thought provoking movie. The feelings it stirs up combine like some uncomfortable emotional Voltron, composed of a confusing mix of some form of rage, the vague desire to take a shower, the rudderless, sinking feeling of true betrayal one gets when they realize they have given 109 minutes of their lives into the hands of someone who would not only squander it, but do so in such a pompous, artless way. And I probably wouldn't have done anything super productive with that 109 minutes anyway! But even if I'd spent it on something trivial, like a power block of masturbation and online poker, I would have felt more fulfilled when all was said and done.

The problems with this movie are myriad, and in better times I'd articulate exactly what they were in a semi-adult fashion. But in keeping with what this movie deserves, I think I'll most likely stick to the realm of masturbation jokes and cartoon references.

The most irritating and terminal flaw is that while watching this movie one is keenly aware that the makers and participants think they are making a much smarter movie than they are. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge one could pick up in a one semester survey of Western art history at a community college or trade school, the art-jargon is piled on thick and from all directions, with much of it supplied by talk between our hero, the tortured detective Stan (Willem Dafoe, who I will forgive for this movie due to him being Willem Dafoe) and his accented antique dealer buddy Blair (Peter Stormare, taking a break from playing a sociopath for whom murder comes easy by playing a 2-dimensional plot device in a movie about a sociopath for whom murder comes easy). And talk they do. In fact, we are dropped into this story at a crime scene that may indicate the reemergence of a serial killer Stan thinks he killed years earlier, so all the back story is established partially through unclear flashback, but primarily through stilted conversations between Stan and his dealer, or Stan and his colleague, the unforgivably irritating Carl (Scott Speedman). And although I differentiate the character Carl (Scott Speedman) from the actor who plays him by using parentheses, I must admit that very early on in the film I despised this character so much that I actually found myself sincerely wishing harm on the actor portraying him (Scott Speedman). Not anything too fancy. Not death or paralysis, necessarily.. But maybe herpes? Or maybe a stage light could fall on him and crush his arm? This is a dangerous digression, but I'm not editing it out because I want to leave anyone reading this who's thinking about paying to see this train wreck of a movie with a clear impression of the horrible wishes and feelings it stirs in even the most peaceful man.

Well, I'm sort of running out of steam here.. over the course of writing this the sick feelings this movie brought up in a me have subsided, my head has cleared a bit. Realizing now that I'm still investing time in something related to this piece of sh!t is startlingly similar to waking up after a night of suicidally heavy drinking next to the heaving form of a still slumbering 200 pound college girl. Your first urge is a desperate desire to flee. This is natural.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Much of "Over Her Dead Body" is so painfully unfunny that I was actually squirming in my seat out of embarrassment for the actors.

Eva Longoria proves that she can't carry a film in this terrible romantic comedy, and further, that she doesn't really even have any comedic timing. She's grating and annoying as a ghost who returns to earth to keep a cooky psychic from dating her widower fiance. The fiance is played by Paul Rudd, drippy and charmless, while the psychic is played by Lake Bell, bringing the movie whatever anemic energy it has. I felt most sorry for Bell, as she appears to have some comic abilities and was working overtime in an effort to make the material work. Unfortunately, she is up against the insurmountable task of making any movie that features Jason Biggs tolerable, and she is dragged down with the rest of the cast like Leo DiCaprio at the end of "Titanic."

"Over Her Dead Body" actually pi**ed me off, because of its laziness and utter lack of effort. I started to think of all the interesting projects that can't get funded because vast amounts of money are being funneled into bland crap like this. Seriously, does Hollywood think movies like this are good enough? How stupid do they really think the movie-going public is?

Grade: F
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.

I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.

For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.

see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.