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

Review:This is a great movie if viewed in the proper context - It was meant to be a parody of teen-horror-devil-worship movies (and the '80s saw plenty of them)! I saw this movie when it first came out, and instantly liked it. Being a big fan of KISS, it was great to see Gene in the movie. And anything with OZZY as a metal-hating preacher can't be all bad! Also, Fastway was already a favorite of mine, so it was great to hear them on the soundtrack.

The original VHS (this was pre-DVD) cover for Trick Or Treat featured an illustration of Sammi kneeling, playing his guitar in a ring of fire with a "demon" looking on. It was a special order, and the price for the VHS copy at the time (circa 1987) was $90! I really wanted the movie, but not at that ridiculous price. The 'OZZY-Gene' cover was only created for the $5 re-release. The company releasing it probably figured Gene and OZZY were the only recognizable people in the movie, so they had better put 'em on the cover! Same thing with the original "Little Shop Of Horrors" - Jack Nicholson was in it for all of five minutes, but now they have him on the cover as if he were the main star.

I have a "Trick Or Treat" web site, and it's surprising how many people believe Sammi Curr was a real person! Fastway helped perpetuate that myth by dedicating their soundtrack album to 'Sammi Curr'.

All-in-all, it was just a good time, rock-n-roll movie. Definitely not to be taken too seriously, but just enjoyed!
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliche's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:The shame of it! There I was, comfortable in the arm chair with a beer and a bag of popcorn, bouyant in the hope of another splendid Muppet night of entertainment. What did I get? Disappointed! How can the Muppets go from the sublime Christmas Carol to this? The humour was dreadful, the songs were worse than Country and Western (and that's saying something) and the plot was as confused and poor as Blind Pew. I think the main problem was that they bit off too much in attempting Treasure Island. A short tale, such as Christmas Carol, is perfect because you can weave the Muppet high jinks around it....here the need to drag the plot along stopped all the fun. Where do the Muppets go next? How about Muppets Wizard of Oz?
+++++++++
A:
negative