Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.

Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.

The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.

The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Despite what others had said (*cough*), this is my favourite movie of all time. I don't know how long I had been waiting to see it, but once I finally did, I immediately fell in love. Sure, it's strange, but that just gives it more of an exciting flavour. For those who don't know, Moonchild is one of Gackt and Hyde's first movies. They haven't done very many at all, maybe 3 or 4 tops each. So, give them some credit. We all know that Adam Sandler wasn't the best at first either. I do believe that they do throw some odd situations in there, but I over look that to find the best points of this movie, the emotions displayed and whatnot. Therefore, I have given, and always shall give, this movie a 10 out of 10.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.

Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.

Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.

Grade: A+

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Mirror. Mirror (1990) is a flat out lame movie. Why did I watch movies like this when I was younger? Who knows? Maybe I was one for punishing myself by watching one terrible movie after another. I don't know, I guess I needed a hobby during my teen years. A teenage outcast (Rainbow Harvest) seeks solace in an old mirror. Soon she learns about the horrific power this antique mirror has and uses it to strike out against those who have wronged her. Movies like these, the power giver has a nasty side effect. This one changes her inside and out if she likes it or not.

A mess of a movie that for some reason was restored on d.v.d. a few years back. I don't know why. They should have left it on the shelf and collect dust. People love this movie foe some reason. If you do I would like to know why. Until then I dislike this movie and I have no reason to ever watch it again.

Not recommended at all.