Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derriere. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered "classic" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...

THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...

I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for "tension" and "suspense" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a "must-see" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...

This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..

I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-

This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.

Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.

And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.

What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.

I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.

1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs.

Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it.