Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is what I was expecting when star trek DS9 premiered. Not to slight DS9. That was a wonderful show in it's own right, however it never really gave the fans more of what they wanted. Enterprise is that show. While having a similarity to the original trek it differs enough to be original in it's own ways. It makes the ideas of exploration exciting to us again. And that was one of the primary ingredients that made the original so loved. Another ingredient to success was the relationships that evolved between the crew members. Viewers really cared deeply for the crew. Enterprise has much promise in this area as well. The chemistry between Bakula and Blalock seems very promising. While sexual tension in a show can often become a crutch, I feel the tensions on enterprise can lead to much more and say alot more than is typical. I think when we deal with such grand scale characters of different races or species even, we get some very interesting ideas and television. Also, we should note the performances, Blalock is very convincing as Vulcan T'pol and Bacula really has a whimsy and strength of character that delivers a great performance. The rest of the cast delivered good performances also. My only gripes are as follows. The theme. It's good it's different, but a little to light hearted for my liking. We need something a little more grand. Doesn't have to be orchestral. Maybe something with a little more electronic sound would suffice. And my one other complaint. They sell too many adds. They could fix this by selling less ads, or making all shows two parters. Otherwise we'll end up seeing the shows final act getting wrapped up way too quickly as was one of my complaints of Voyager.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".

Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This movie is one of the best ever produced by disney.

The plot is very original and entertaining. The animated sequence is also very well done with the live actors. (For the time).

Perhaps one of my favorite sequences is contained in this movie with the march of the suits of armor.