Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).

He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.

Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.

Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.

About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.

I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I have seen this film several times, and watched it today (on TCM) solely because of Geraldine Fitzgerald. She is a much underrated actress and I have to admit I have had a crush on her since I first saw her (probably in "Wuthering Heights" 40 or more years ago). The real star in this movie, however, is Paul Lukas, and he deserved all the accolades he got. He makes it clear, whether we like it or not, that the end justifies the means. Naziism had to be stopped, and anything that helped do it was good. He gave his children a line about being bad, and that they should not be bad, but as he said earlier when conversing with adults, he would do this sort of thing again without hesitation. Lukas did give an excellent portrayal of a man caught in this situation, and made it clear that what he did was a very hard thing to do.

Some people think his victim was a Nazi, but I don't think so - I think he was only after the money. His Nazi associates knew this and that is why they did not have much use for him.

One interesting point in the film, and presumably also in the play, is the fact that Muller (Lucas) is a German. While the anti German hysteria of WWI was not repeated in WWII, there was considerable anti-German sentiment and some Germans were interred similar to what happened in California with people of Japanese ancestry. It was something of an act of bravery for Hellman to write a play about good Germans at this time (maybe she thought they were the ones who signed the Nazi-Soviet pact!). After all, the US and British air forces were bombing German cities and having no qualms about killing innocent civilians. I think, however, that the Dresden bombing and firestorm happened later, after "Watch on the Rhine" was released.

The title is something of a play on words, as the "watch" is looking west, from Germany. In fact, Watch am Rhein was a German army marching song - used in WWII, but the Nazis had their own marching song that was used as well. But Muller IS a German and he is engaged in his own "Wach am Rhein".

All the other actors did an excellent job here; although Bodo was too much there are children like him. I am surprised he did not give his father's secret away. In real life, he may very well have done so.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: A "friend", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The "whore mangler" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
A journey of discovery, this film follows the lives of one family living in a sleepy, island town in British Columbia. Languorous and dreamy, the inhabitants are satisfied to allow life to go on around them until a young, fresh-faced teacher, with new ideas arrives and brings with her life from the mainland. Slowly, their indolent state is awakened, the father (and principal of the local school) looks for excitement, the mother for stability, the oldest daughter for love, and the youngest for power. While not an incredible or ground-breaking piece of cinema, the movie is quietly enjoyable and good for a tired night when the wind is blowing. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone outside of Canada will find it easily accessible.