An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my "to rent" list when I saw it was available.

The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.

Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want "fair" in terms of exploitation, you got it.

I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliche killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.

The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.

This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.

Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?

I also have a few other questions too.

Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources?

who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)?

And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?

There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.

The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.

While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,

the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage).

As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.

Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating).

It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released,

but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.

The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.

the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
This movie is simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.

I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the "pay off" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film.

This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.

As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch again.