Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.

When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.

However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part cliched and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.

All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.

The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:This movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:For some reason, in the late 70's and early 80's the local CBS affiliated station in New York kept playing this movie in it's late-night slot on Friday or Saturday nights for several years, usually at 2 a.m. or some such time. It's a fitting movie for that time slot since it's really hard to follow and quite odd (see the other reviews for specific story info). Anyway, after catching it numerous times in those days just before cable TV (And even after it hit but before they offered much all night programming), I kept catching this little oddity. After not seeing it for many years I decided to see if I could find it on DVD. Well, it is only available (from every search i've conducted anyway)in a pretty lousy grainy print on the budget label "Brentwood Video" as part of a 4-pack of movies (4 movies on 2 double sided discs)called "Alien Worlds" if anyone is interested. It's usually available for around $10-but even much less if you shop around. The other 3 movies on this set are readily available in numerous other collections of public domain movies, so no need to comment on them here. But I haven't seen "Eyes" available anywhere else. Though hardly a "restored" version in any way, this print runs exactly 92 minutes, so for once IMDb's stated running time of 90 minutes is not correct. Even with the 92 minute running time it's not unusual for a movie dubbed into English from another language to also have some of the running time trimmed. It seems to be a common budget-conscience practice to sometimes save money by not bothering to dub some scenes at all if they are not considered to be important to the story. Would a longer version make in any less confusing? Who really knows-unless you've seen it in it's native language... By the way, my attempts to watch this during the day don't work and I end up just turning it off. There's something about watching this in the middle of the night that just fits this movie..or maybe it's just from my earlier experiences, who know??
+++++++++
A:
negative