Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Doctor Mordrid is one of those rare films that is completely under the radar, but is totally worthwhile. It really reminds me of the old serials from the 30s and 40s. Which is why I'd have loved to see follow-up movies... but judging by the rest of Full Moon's output there simply weren't enough tits to satisfy the typical audience. Unfortunately, thanks to a completely superfluous sacrifice scene there two too many for a family audience - which is unfortunate, because without em' this could have been a Harry Potter-style magicfest that kids would have eaten up. Both Jeffrey Combs and Yvette Nipar are great - I wasn't sure if Ms. Nipar hadn't wandered off an A-list picture onto this film, she was very believable. No, seriously! Anyway - it's a shame they didn't have the bucks to license Dr. Strange, because I think this could have been a total kiddie phenom.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This is without a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie Steven Seagal has ever made. And that says a lot. Don't get fooled by the rating, it's way too good. This abomination hadn't even been worthy of a 0/10 rating, if such a thing existed.

- Absolutely no plot

- Worst action scenes ever, and there aren't too many of them either

- Seagal doesn't do anything himself, including the fighting, talking (lots of dubbing), and so on. As always.

- Seagal is fat, lazy and couldn't care less about this movie. Something which is very obvious all the way through

Take all the other garbage DTV movies Seagal has made, multiply them with each other, multiply this with a thousand billions, and all the badness you then get won't even describe 1 % of this absolute crapfest.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.

The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"

Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.

This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10.