Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Tony Hawk Underground came at a point where the series was really starting to lose its luster, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 did not live up to expectations and left the series really up in the air on what Neversoft and Activision could do with the series that would be different and interesting.

Underground introduced the storymode, which was very cool because it made a whole new world for Tony Hawk Pro Skater fans. Another feature introduced which fans pretty much argued for and that was being able to get off the skateboard, which is nice because now you can actually climb, run, and do all sorts of new things.

The levels are good, Neversoft also improved on an issue that started with Pro Skater 3 and that was the length of the level designs. The first two games for the PS1, N64 and Dreamcast were great because the levels were nice and long and some hidden features in some. Pro Skater 3 and 4 were shortened because of a handful of features that were added and really pushed the systems too their limits. In this version, they shortened those features, there isn't as many people wondering the streets, in fact there are almost none in some levels, and the graphics and the skating physics are toned down a little but not a lot.

This game does have one con, the storymode is a little short, of course this is Neversofts first time doing this with Tony Hawk Pro Skater, so that is understandable. However, with that being said you will definitely finish this game within a day.

Overall, a great addition that was very refreshing.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is almost the worst film you will ever see! 2012 Doomsday currently pulls the rug from under this one, for me. The props are a perfect example of what Frank Zappa once referred to as 'cheepnis.' It looks as if the space scenes were made in a 1950s power station, just prior to demolition. The music really sucks. The acting is wooden and ham. The characters they portray are shallow and unconvincing. The plot is predictable. It is immediately and brazenly obvious when they copy techniques and ideas from other films. The quality of direction beggars belief.

But you have to see it, if only to experience what has to be one of the biggest wastes of a tiny budget ever. This is a priceless example of a stupid movie!

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Mr Perlman gives a standout performance (as usual). Sadly, he has to struggle with an underwritten script and some nonsensical set pieces.

Larsen is in "Die Hard" mode complete with singlet and bulging muscles, I'm sure he could do better but seems satisfied to grimace and snarl through his part.

The lovely Erika is very decorative (even though fully clothed!) and shows some signs of "getting" acting at last.

SFX are mainly poor CGI and steals from other movies.

The shootouts are pitiful - worthy of the A-Team

Not even worth seeing for Perlman - AVOID

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Director/star Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" is an intriguing addition to the "Dirty Harry" series - a combination of crude film-making and genius. It's mediocre and silly in parts, brilliant and classic in others, with compelling, gripping pacing. There are numerous echoes of the first film here - the shoot 'em up "Make my day" scene recalls the "Do you feel lucky" one, one of the villains is as viscerally repugnant as the first film's Scorpio, an actor who played a minor baddie in the first one returns here as Harry's partner - just to name a few.

Harry Callahan is still at odds with the higher-ups in the department, still mean, still tough, but now he's older and wearier. His constant conflicts with his superiors are a metaphor for his inner conflict - a respect and reverence for the law versus a desire to serve the pure spirit of justice, the two things not always being compatible. This "incompatibility" is the underlying theme of the series. The first film posed a simple question, "What about the victim's rights?" - (do they outweigh those of the criminal? Vice versa? Depends?). That film's answer was controversial, prompting a sequel (the highly enjoyable "Magnum Force") which set out to draw the line between Harry's brand of justice and pure, heartless vigilantism. Dirty Harry, like many of Clint's other roles, is the personification of vengeance, the protector of the the defenseless. This movie however brings it back to the victim, in this case Jennifer (portrayed by Sondra Locke), who decides to avenge the rape of herself and her now-incapacitated sister by ruthlessly hunting down and ritualistically executing the men (and one woman) who committed the crime.

Without going into a play-by-play of the whole movie, I will say this - I mentioned earlier that "Sudden Impact" echoes the first film - it actually also sprinkles in little references and in-jokes from the whole series (the confusion concerning the captain's last name is an example - an intentional prank, I believe). The relationship between Callahan and Jennifer is neat - has our rogue cop hero found a soul-mate in this lady vigilante? And is she a vigilante or a victim justifiably standing up for her and her sister's tarnished rights? The exchange between these two at the very end of the film is a poetic denouement of the series, one which I personally (as a fan) found quite moving. That last scene alone makes Sudden Impact the legitimate climax to the "Dirty Harry" collection, the perfect answer to the conflict posed in the first film. (Not to knock "The Dead Pool" - that excellent movie was a relatively light-hearted suspenseful yet comic thriller featuring Harry Callahan, rather than a character-defining film like this one).

This movie did well in the theaters - audiences in the Reagan Era found Harry and his ilk quite appealing, and the President himself frequently quoted "Go ahead, make my day."