Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The Drug Years actually suffers from one of those aspects to mini-series or other kinds of TV documentaries run over and over again for a couple of weeks on TV. It's actually not long enough, in a way. All of the major bases in the decades are covered, and they're all interesting to note as views into post-modern history and from different sides. But it almost doesn't cover enough, or at least what is covered at times is given a once over when it could deserve more time. For example, the information and detail in part three about the whole process and business unto itself of shipping mass amounts of drugs (partly the marijuana, later cocaine) is really well presented, but there are more details that are kept at behest of how much time there is to cover.

Overall though the documentary does shed enough light on how drugs, pop-culture, government intervention, the upper classes and lower classes and into suburbia, all felt the wave of various drugs over the years, and the interplay between all was very evident. Nobody in the film- except for the possibility of small hints with the pot)- goes to endorse drugs outright, but what is shown are those in archival clips about the honesty of what is at times fun, and then tragic, about taking certain drugs. The appearances of various staunch, ridiculously anti-drug officials does hammer some points down hard- with even in such an overview of the drug cultures and America's connection as a whole- as there is really only one major point that is made a couple of times by one of the interviewees. The only way to really approach the issue of drugs is not 'just say no', because as the war on drugs has shown it is not as effective as thought. It is really just to come clean on all sides about all the drugs and the people who may be hypocritical about them (as, for example, oxycontin continues on in the marketplace).

Is it with the great interest and depth of a Ken Burns documentary? No, but for some summertime TV viewing for the young (i.e. my age) who will view a lot of this as almost ancient history despite most of it being no more than a generation ago, as well as for the 'old' who can reflect some decades later about the great peaks, careless times, and then the disillusionment prodded more by the same media that years earlier propagated and advertised it. There are those who might find the documentary to be particularly biased, which is not totally untrue, but it does attempt to get enough different takes on the social, political, and entertainment conditions of drugs interweaving (for better or obvious worse) for enough of a fascinating view.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.

Who greenlit this mess?

I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.

Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Dark Rising is your typical bad, obviously quickly produced horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie. It has a strange, unexplained plot with holes so big you could fit an elephant through them. Most of the time I didn't know what the hell was going on but it didn't really matter, it was a simple demon hunter returns from hell dimension to save campers story with confusing stuff added on about witches and a book of evil with plot elements and characters who make no sense or disappear totally for no reason. The acting is bad but there honestly is not much they can do with this script I am guessing. There is a couple topless scenes which is probably the only reason this bad movie got made (like so many other bad movies). Give this one a pass unless there is nothing else on T.V.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Starring an unknown cast which seem likely to remain that way, this "film" is yet another cheap slasher flick which amazes me how this was released. I have no problem with horrors and slasher flicks in particular, in fact they are my favourites. But when they are done THIS BAD, it really does take the monkey and its no wonder the genre has such a hard time. The story is as cliched and without imagination as possible with a bunch of people in a cabin out in the woods being slashed and hacked up by this zombie/ghost guy. Its not the story that sucks the most, its the atrocious acting and dialouge, home made directing quality and an awful soundtrack. Not to mention laughable effects and some incredibly lazy film making - these morons are outside in clear daylight yet we are meant to believe it's night?? What the hell was the director thinking with this move? What, he had only one day to film all this in? He was scared of the dark? ( Is hilarious seeing a cop walking around in pure daylight with a torch acting as if its pitch black, though)

I guess the positive side for the actors is they look like people who work in the local supermarket so at least they could possibly escape from this film without ever being noticed. Im sure one of the "teens" plays bingo down the local pub - but she's 40-45.

Anyway, good for a laugh but just another waste of film and time.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
On the surface the idea of Omen 4 was good. It's nice to see that the devil child could be a girl. In fact, sometimes, as in the Exorcist, when girls are possessed or are devilry it's very effective. But in Omen 4, it stunk.

Delia does not make me think that she could be a devil child, rather she is a child with issues. Issues that maybe only a therapist, rather then a priest could help. She does not look scary or devilish. Rather, she looks sulky and moody.

This film had potential and if it was made by the same people who had made the previous three films it could of worked. But it's rather insulting really to make a sequel to one of the most favoured horror trilogies, as a made for TV movie special.

On so many levels it lets down. It's cheap looking, the acting is hammish and the effects are typical of a TV drama. The characters do not bring any sympathy, and you do not route for them. I recently re-watched it after someone brought it for me for Christmas, and it has dated appalling.

If your thinking of watching this, then I would suggest that you don't. Watch one of the others, or watch the Exorcist, or watch The Good Son. Just don't waste your time on this drivel!