input: 666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: *********Ten out of Ten Stars*********

It's hard to believe this was a made for television movie. Just the phrase, "made of TV", makes me shudder. The production values for made for TV movies are almost always remarkably lower than production values for professional movie studios. That being said, this version of the "Christmas Carol" should have been released in theaters, because it IS that good. It's my personal favorite of all the "Christmas Carol" movies because every aspect of this production are of the highest quality. Yes, there are some minor on screen glitches with two of the ghosts that visit Scrooge, but there isn't a movie in existence that doesn't have at least a couple of mistakes.

Scott turns in a stellar performance as Scrooge, he's a pleasure to watch. In fact, I can't think of one performance in this film that shouldn't be applauded. The costuming, location shooting, and winter backdrop are mesmerizing. The musical score is endearing and heart warming. Add to that, solid directing, flawless cinematography, and faithful scripting; we have here what will one day be considered a holiday classic. It really hasn't been around long enough to be a classic, but mark my words, one day soon it will be. This film has turned into a yearly Christmas tradition in my home because it embodies the true meaning behind Christmas: Love, selflessness, and giving. In as selfish, greedy world, my family and I can lose ourselves in "The Christmas Carol", starring George C. Scott.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though!

I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!

The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative