Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I think i watched this movie, but don't quote me, as i may have fallen asleep during watching it as it didn't exactly "grip my excitement and imagination." At least i know i watched enough of it to know i won't be watching it again soon. Or ever.

Jeez, talk about lame... Really lame. Totally lame. It wouldn't even appeal to a six year old. It basically had NO worthwhile dramatic impact. Zilch. Nada. Just shlock turned into dreck. Comedy? That was supposed to be comedy? Ya coulda fooled me-ee-ee...!

Now, if the aliens had been insatiably carnivorous like in the movie "Critters", we could have had the human characters do something a little more profound than be overly smugly cutesy... like yelling and screaming and running for their lives so they wouldn't be eaten so the story could be something more exciting than watching paint dry.

Don't bother watching this. It's not worth the effort. You can find something more interesting to do. Like watching paint dry. Or falling asleep.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).

Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.

Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.

The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.

This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.

Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.

The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.

It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.

It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.

I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.

Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen.