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

Answer: As soon as I knew Keira Knighteley being in this flick, I said "I have to watch this movie". She's the undisputed main character, Domino, a bounty hunter. Her "job", as the "no action" scenes would teach us, reflects her rebel, violent attitude to life. I have to admit that it's the very first time that I watch an action movie whose most important scenes are the one in which the guns are far away from characters' hands. So, this stomped me a bit. Anyway, for all the John Woo's fans, there are helicopters falling down, explosions, gunfire as if it would rain, and a lovely Keira that shoots with two machine guns, one per hand. The cast is absolutely brilliant. Going beyond Keira, which in this movie is a real tomboy, pretty much different from the lovely action figure we're used to see, Mickey Rourke is back, with his usual slap-throwing face and his potent body. Christopher Walken makes his job pretty well, as a reality show producer.

Let's go to the contents: this movie has a journalistic shape. The talk show scene is "disgustingly" real. Anyone that watched that load of . . . you-know-what, can tell that this is the air that you breath in those situations. As well as the producer, when Domino's mom says that the reality that should show Domino's life is "trash; no offense", he answers "I don't take it like an offense". This movie portrays a difficult life. Domino, coming from a world that didn't want her, Ed (Mickey Rourke), a bounty hunter "not so bounty", Choco (the third guy of the band), which family is (using Ed's words), "the correctional institutes he's been", and Alf, the driver/bomber coming from Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This bunch of people represents in some way the humankind born "without the shirt"; unlucky, violent, and with nothing to lose, excepts their (as they would consider) miserable lives. The intro of the movie says that it is "inspired by true story . . . more or less", so I couldn't possibly tell you how much of this stuff is true. Anyway, going beyond explosions and dozens of weapons (which could have been "added" to make the film easier to see, and be classified as an action movie), the characters' story is too realistic to be "edulcorated".

The interaction between the characters is various, well studied, and definitely not boring. What hasn't convinced me so much is the role of the psychiatrist (Lucy Liu, sober as never in her acting career). It represents only the reason by which Domino starts telling her story (and that's a story). Probably, the only "con", in a movie with a lot of "pros".

All in all: This isn't "SWAT". The characters are crafted; they have an identity, a shape. They have a name and a surname (not just "Gamble" and "Street"). It's the case to say, it's the biography of a girl whose life went as fast as a bullet.

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

Answer: The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.

Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result particularly in this bastardized edition is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!!

The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.

Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!

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

Answer: Rebar is an astronaut who goes on the world's first space mission to Saturn, but of course this being a horror movie things turn ugly and he returns to earth as the only survivor. Stricken with some bizarre condition that causes him to slowly melt and lose his mind unless he regularly consumes human flesh, he kills what apparently is the only nurse in the hospital and escapes to the neighboring town to stalk more victims.

I liked the premise and the monster and gore effects are actually pretty good, but the space scenes are just pasted together out of stock NASA footage and the hospital looks curiously like a warehouse. A very weak script, little character development and overall poor acting keep this one from rising above being anything other than a mediocre slasher flick with the novelty of having a living candle as the killer, and more or less only has its gore effects to hold your interest.

4 out of 10, strictly for the most die-hard monster movie fans.

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

Answer:
Well, what was fun... except for the fun part.

It's my second least favorite so far, I even thought it was worse than 'Lazarus' and 'Ghost in the Machine'.

Let's start with the good. The teaser, it was incredibly well done and also emotional. Being the great animal lover that I am, it was fun seeing so many beautiful animals in this episode.

But then there's all the bad, and believe me there is a lot of it. Little made sense, so those animals were being abducted by aliens and impregnated? whaaa??? the dialog was also pretty awful. There were about one or two quotable lines.

and worst of all, having pretty much all those animals die was very unpleasant for me. In the end... what's the point? they all pretty much died. We didn't learn anything, we weren't entertained, and I couldn't even find Sophia's death sad... just very frustrating.

* star. shame because Season 2 was doing so well.