Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).

We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.

Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.

Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.

An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.

I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.

Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?

One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!

1/10.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I just saw "If" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.

In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...

The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.

Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naivete but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.

The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.

See one of the other versions of this story instead.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Let's get some things straight first: Zombies don't exist so the filmmaker can have them WALK, RUN, hell even FLY if he wants to. That's what makes this original Zombie movie so good. Everything they did was so damn original. I hate it when filmmakers do everything like Romero or when fan boys expect everything like Romero. Some idiots think that zombies should only growl like a typical Romero movie, once again zombies don't exist so a filmmaker can make zombies whistle if he wants. The zombies in this movie all look very good but OBVIOUSLY they are not decaying corpses since they JUST freaking died! They are pretty messed up though and full of chopped faces and blood. One of the coolest scenes was a half eaten cat. It looked so damn real my daughter cried when she saw it. This movie got really good reviews in Fangoria and Rue Morgue so that made me want to go see it. I'm glad I listened. They are always right when it comes to real horror fan's tastes. 10 out of 10! Go rent it!