Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did "Attack of the THE Eye Creatures" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.

Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's "eh-I-grew-out-of-it" conspiracy drawer, here's "Down On Us (i.e.- "Beyond the Doors") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.

Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.

Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!

Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the "twist" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.

But like the man said: "Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll."

Not this flick, though.

No stars for "Down on Us". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way....
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed cliched 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.

So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Wow. Uhm...well...wow! I guess I'll start with the plot. A betrothed woman (Lucy) arrives at the family home of her would be husband (Mathurin) in France, where they are awaiting the arrival of the Bishop or Cardinal or someone in the Catholic Church to marry them (to satisfy a will.) While waiting, young Lucy learns about a legend of a Beast who roamed the grounds centuries before. In bed that night, she begins fantasizing about the Beast and his rape-turned-consensual tryst with the former lady of the house. That's where it gets interesting! The plot is really pretty thin (and it seems to drag on for quite a while in the middle of the flick), but the filmmaker rewards (?) those who stick it out with a shocking and hilarious finale.

This movie isn't for everyone. If you're looking for great cinema, look elsewhere. If you're looking for a far-out movie about bestiality (that almost casts a sympathetic glance over the subject) this movie is for you! (If you have a weak stomach, don't be afraid of this one. Outside of some horse-on-horse action at the beginning, the 'deeds' are pretty cartoonish, IMO)
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It makes one wonder how this show is still on the air. There's been one couple that has stayed together, married, and has children, but everyone else has broken up. What's the point of continuing this? The show can be entertaining at the beginning. You see all the girls swooning over one man, that almost all of them like instantly. It's just like in real life! The girls start to take sides, bitch one another out, and show their true selves (or so we think). But that one man is left to decide who to pick that he thinks he can marry and live happily ever after.

What is true love exactly? How can you fall for someone when you're forced to pick them? This show is unbelievable. You thought dating online was bad, but people have to go on TV to find love? It's not realistic. How could a girl be with a man when he is going out with several others, making out with them? None of these questions are answered, and finally when the show ends, you know there won't be a happy ending in the future. For all we know, everything is scripted.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.

Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.

Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.

The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler.