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

Answer: Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make "The Sealed Room" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow.

*** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.

i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.

i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.

it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.

i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.

i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.

spoilers ahead...

it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.

the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.

rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.

i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.

Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think "martian"! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?

Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.

Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.

Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader.