Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is not a good movie but I still like it. The cat Clovis is gold in a jar as well as the premise of the cats themselves - intrinsically opposed to the evil Sleepwalkers. I think there is more to this movie than people realize, basically it is very harsh, but this brusqueness can sometimes be good. It's got the corny lines, the abrupt ending and a comedic element conveyed by the bumbling policemen.

Did anyone find the incestuous element a bit disturbing? Ultimately this movie is casually and randomly acrimonious, which is quite effective, I liken it to Psycho - the relationship between the mother and son, the changing of protagonists. I think the abruptness works also, this is not a movie that you want them to lengthen, it only works if it's short.

I'm still not sure whether the director lacked depth, or whether he did these things with purpose, we know Stephen King has ability, yet I haven't even read his books, only seen some of his movies.

Anyway, I liked it. If you like harsh corny movies with 80's overtones just watch it. but don't expect too much. It really is so bad its good.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.

Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is "avant-garde" or just "stupid." Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.

This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The "scene" from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!

Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy "punk" performance from a Damned wannabe "Babel". Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.

Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Me and my girlfriend, Annette, watched this together and we'll both comment.

Both of us really enjoyed watching this even though it took some liberties with Dicken's work. A lot of Dicken's works are somewhat dark and dreary (including Oliver Twist), but this movie changed all that. It was fun, colourful (both visually and musically), and the characters were more lighthearted.

TRAVIS: Normally, I don't care a lot for musical and dance movies, but the tunes in this production were catchy and lively, and the choreography was awesome.

ANNETTE: That's really saying a lot coming from Travis. I can't emphasise enough how really good the dance numbers were. You can tell, for example, that those boys really worked hard getting the routines down to perfection.

TRAVIS: Three actors really stood out IMO; Nancy (Shani W.), Bill Sykes (Oliver Reed), and Artful Dodger (Jack Wild). Man, that Oliver Reed can really do a good villain. That one scene where you see his eyes thru the mail slot gave me chills down the back...AWESOME. And that kid Jack Wild was a perfect Artful Dodger. And Nancy was fantastic (man, I felt bad when she got killed). She can sing too! Kudos to the casting department on their choices there. I hated the Oliver Twist kid tho. He was just too whiny and wimpy for my taste. (I kept wishing Bill Sikes would drop him off into the mud during the chase scene.) And they shouldn't have had him sing either.

ANNETTE: Acting was truly superb. In addition to the three stars Travis mentioned, I felt Ron Moody (Fagin) did a tremendous job. He was so funny, and at the same time lightly sinister too. The supporting actors were great too. Harry Secombe carried his Mr. Bumble role extremely well. And he has a wonderful singing voice. I saw Mr. Secombe perform in another movie entitled "Davy" where he played an opera singer with pleasing results. The talented Harry Secombe should have been in a lot more movies.

TRAVIS: As I mentioned earlier the story isn't quite true to the book, but IMO it was more robust. This movie was not boring either, as some musicals seem to be. And the continuity kept you moving right along with the characters. The tunes did not detract from the plot or put you to sleep by being too long.

ANNETTE: Any musical movie which Travis watches completely has to be a rare find. And this one is indeed a rare find. It is a very easy-to-watch production which carries the viewer smoothly and enjoyably through to the end. In a day when movies all seem to be effects combined with pretty faces, this was a refreshing interlude.

Our combined rating for this was 8.5 of 10. (We'll round up to 9 in this case.).

TRAVIS: I rated this a 7 mainly because the Oliver Twist kid (Mark L.) irritated me, and his songs were torture to my overly sensitive ears. Otherwise, it was an outstanding movie.

ANNETTE: My rating is a 10. Movies don't get much better than this. And you can tell everyone involved in this production really worked hard to make it what it was...a masterpiece.

Please don't miss this one...even if you normally don't like musicals. It really is a rare treat.