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

Answer: Wonderland is the fascinating film chronicling the x-rated film star John C. Holmes involvement in the brutal Wonderland murders.

The movie's promotion misleads one into thinking this a romanticized portrayal of the porn industry in the vein of Boogie Nights and that is not the case here.In fact,except for a few references made by newscasters that John Holmes is a porn star and a brief montage of real-life footage of John Holmes this film is strictly drama about a fallen celebrity's involvement with murder and how it happened.

Despite being mislead the film is actually engaging.The acting from all the cast is excellent and I'd like to say that Val Kilmer is amazing in his ability to get down all the mannerisms of John Holmes.I was completely convinced that I was watching what John C. Holmes probably looked and acted like in real life.

If you are a John C. Holmes fan or like stories about Hollywood then I think you will enjoy watching Wonderland.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).

And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).

Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.

In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.

Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.

So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.

Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.

The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.

For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, "I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.

Don't waste your time people. Trust me.

My rating: 0/5.0