Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is the third parody of the scary movies and hopefully the last. This time the spoof is mainly on The Ring, Signs and 8 Mile for some weird reason. In my opinion this movie was very pointless and unnecessary and not even funny. I laughed maybe three times and that is not enough for a comedy. I really enjoyed the first two but this one was just plain dumb. If your jokes consist of corpses getting beat up and people constantly throwing stuff at each other then this movie is for you. In my opinion, if your smart enough stay at home and save your money and please stop making these kind of movies, they just keep getting worse 3/10.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I think that if I went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of English to come up with a script, it would make more sense than this. I could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. This sounds really mean, but I'm certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what I did there?) neither the skills to act or to write anything, ever.

Watch this only if you're incredibly drunk, high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. I will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. After that, I will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my DVD player, fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery.

Acting - 0/10 Plot - LOL/10 Breasts - 9/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.

The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.

The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).

Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.

This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.

In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.

Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Of course the plot, script, and, especially casting are strong in the film. So many fine things to see. One aspect I liked especially is the idea of the antagonist--Luzhini's (Turturro's)--ex-mentor working his evil on the sidelines. His chess opponent--an Italian dandy in three piece and cane--turns out to be a real gent, and a truly fine chess player. To his credit the "opponent" nobly goes along with the plan at the end to complete the final game for the championship posthumously (Luzhin has taken a flyer out a window--sad, but so releasing to him)by way of the unstable genius' widow (Emily Watson.) In death, then, because of the gallantry of an honorable chess master, Luzhin's defence (which he worked out in a late moment of lucidity) is allowed to be played. The Italian gent commends the play and calls it brilliant. Talk about a dramatic "end game!"
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Okay. This Movie is a Pure Pleasure. It has the Ever so Violent Horror Mixed with a Little Suspense and a Lot of Black Comedy. The Dentist Really Starts to loose His Mind and It's Enjoyable to Watch him do so. This Movie is for Certain People, Though. Either you'll Completely Love it or You Will Totally Hate It. A Good Movie to Rent and Watch When you don't Got Anything else to do. Also Recommended: Psycho III