Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: There were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't recommend it.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: BSG is one of my all time favourite TV series. I was lucky enough to start watching it as the series came to it's final season. It was a marathon from start to finish for me and what an incredible ride it was!

As soon as I noticed the pilot on Hulu I knew exactly what I was in for just by the title - Caprica! Although, some things don't add up when you compare both series it is still beautifully executed. There were no mention about the holobands in Battlestar Galactica or the mention of virtual worlds but maybe I haven't got far enough into the series for them to explain why.

I recommend this show to anyone who loves the universe, technology, and alternate fantasies of our world. This show is very interesting and will have you wanting to watch more!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.

Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.

Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in "Killer Tongue," if you have not seen that yet.

The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.

So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with "Crocodile" after this is rather sad. "Night Terrors" is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Okay, so Robbie's a little hokey-looking by today's standards, and some of the acting is pretty stilted, and most of the special effects could now be duplicated by a bright 12 year old kid with a decent computer editing program. And don't get me started about the poster.

This is STILL a great movie, 40 years after it was released. I grew up watching "science fiction" on the local TV station's "Science Fiction/Adventure Theater" on Sunday afternoons, so I've seen quite a few SF movies from the '50s. At a time when most movies were content to slap a rubber costume on somebody and have him demolish a miniature model of a city, Forbidden Planet forever raised the bar and showed that it was possible to make a science fiction movie which actually had a plot.

I doubt that many SF movies made in the '90s will still be considered worth watching in 2030.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.

So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.

But it has a lot of faults.

First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.

Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.

Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.

The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.

Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.

The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.

Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this:

Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"

Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."

Well, duh!.....

Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.

I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.

Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.

But what can you say, it's free....

PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?