Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This production has absolutely no storyline. The acting is embarrassing. The promising Dutch television Sophie Hilbrand star should not add this movie to her CV. Her acting is far from flawless and personally I think she has crossed boundary of professional decency; relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. This movie contains too much unnecessary nudity, vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. It also shows a wrong image of the Netherlands (as most movies do). Do not bother to watch this movie: a waste of time, a waste of money and an embarrassing record for Hilbrand, who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:

I saw once No Man's Land (1987) - IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093638 - and found it ok. The film is about a guy who steals only Porsches. Gone in Sixty Seconds comes 13 years after and adds nothing to it. In fact, it has a lot of scenes that are worthless. And the ending is very, very bad.

The Sphinx has a magnetic screen presence that should have been better used...

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: A movie/documentary about different people in Austria on the hottest weekend of the year. It follows what they are doing and maybe more what they are not doing. The tempo is very quiet......so you have to relax.......breathe in...breathe out before you see it......

First you think....but nothing is happening and you get a little angry over that..and thats the problem, because its the mood of the film and the really nice social realistic pictures which are nice in this film...........a lot of people will say its disgusting......but its not that bad...i think its more used for the marketing....and theres some really funny moments...a 60 old woman stripping.....i guarantee its the most unsexy striptease in film history......its movie which is real..i think thats the word......right up in your face.......and that makes it a bit scary.no computer manipulation here.....its real life...and as we all know movies can win over reality when it comes to doing sick things..........so its much worse in the real world.......

If you survive the movie you can start to look at your neighbors and think...maybe they are like the persons in the movie...i bet theres a lot of them out there......sick...crazy people living with a nice facade........after seing the movie i feel its more interesting to look at my neighbors........

But maybe you shouldnt see this movie on your first date.........

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.

All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.

The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.

What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.

Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.

If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.

What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow.