Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The Ogre is a film made for TV in Italy and wasn't intended to be a sequel to Demons as Lamberto Bava even mentions it on the interview on the Sheirk Show DVD, but it was called Demons III to be part of the Demons series. The music in Demons and Demons 2 was 80's rock music while this is more creepy music and while the first two was gory horror Demons III: The Ogre is a architectural horror so that's how Demons III isn't a proper sequel to Demons but I still like this film.

The music is creepy and that adds a tone to the castle that the film is set in, The Ogre is another thing why I like the film. There are two other films that are classed as Demons III and that is Black Demons (Demoni 3) and The Church (Demons 3). Demons III: The Ogre is a good film as long as you don't compare it with Demons and Demons 2.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derriere. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...

How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.

Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will "wait and see" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "The Screaming Skull" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw "House on Haunted Hill" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.

Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.

In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here:
There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.

As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.

First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?

Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.

Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.

It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.

Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.

Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.

Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.

For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!!