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

Answer: The title of worse film of all time is one that gets handed out quickly and often. Most of the time it is exaggeration of the fact but I would like to welcome Alone in the Dark to the short list of real candidates: Plan 9 from Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, and the Adventures of Pluto Nash.

As I watched the 90 minute bore I found it difficult to even stay awake even while I was trying so hard to laugh at the film. But alas I felt alone in the dark (I was gonna try to avoid the pun but I couldn't resist) as I looked around hoping to see Mike Nelson and his two robot friends. Alas my friends and I had to provide comedy throughout the film.

So... about the film itself. Lets talk about the action and effects since that should be the only positive part of the film. The film contains evil creatures that are a cross between the Xenos in Aliens (they even call them Xenos), and the creatures in Pitch Black. The can turn invisible at random (and I assure you it is random) and get hurt by light. Also present are small centipede creatures used to control humans that transform them into something resembling a zombie. All of these are shown with outdated special effects that would have been mediocre in 1997. The action scenes are chaotic and are impossible to follow. People shooting randomly on a blue screen stage or an empty set at monsters who were inserted in post. Light quickly flashes on a dark screen making your pupils burn from overwork while bad rock music blares in the background.

And those were the high points. The story revolving around a paranormal investigator (Slater) whose idea of looking tough is wearing a black wife beater Tshirt with a trench-coat and not shaving for 2 days. An archaeologist (Reid) who is rather inept. And a government agent(Dorff) whose lines involve barking order. All three should be ashamed at their performances (not that they have really ever done a good a job before) and the casting director should be ashamed. Reid and Slater are supposed to be lovers in the film I guess. The film contains the single most awkward love scene I have ever seen on film between the two.

Then comes the plot. Quiet frankly the parts that make sense are not interesting at all. The rest is illogical at best. The plot holes could contain the collective egos of all three stars. The film begins with text and a voice explaining the back-story. This opening lasts for over a minute and already the viewer knows they are in for something terrible. This opening narration is later repeated adnausem in the awkward dialog in a very clumsy and heavy handed fashion through the rest of the film. And the ending did not make one ounce of sense. Not only did it not make sense in the world of the film, it simply did not make sense.

Finally the direction of one Uwe Boll. Disgrace, thats all that can be said. His use of shaking the camera to simulate suspense. His lack of direction with the actors. Just watch Reid in scenes in which she is not center focus of the shot. The complete waste of special effects money for bullet time effects. And finally choosing to use voice over to explain something that should be painfully obvious to the viewers.

I payed a $1.50 to see this show at a second run theater. And while the laughs me and my friends provided made it worth every quarter I would advise people to avoid paying any more for this film. Grab about 3 friends and split the rental cost and tear this movie a new one.

Shame on you Uwe Boll. Shame on you Tara Reid. Shame on you Christian Slater. Shame on you Stephen Dorff. Shame on anyone who was associated with this film.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The music and Laurence Olivier's sombre delivery set the tone perfectly for this outstanding documentary. This is still a must see for WW II buffs, descendants of the participants of that conflict, politicians who think things always go their way when they extend their foreign policy via the deck of an aircraft carrier (did you hear that George Bush?) and anyone else curious or needing to know the whys whos and hows of some aspect of that conflict. The 26 episodes are roughly in chronological order but can be seen out of sequence since they are more or less self contained. There is bound to be new insight for the new viewer because of the sheer volume presented. Actual footage of the battles is interspersed with interviews of those involved in the stories. Many of the interviews are with second line authorities, that is, support personnel to the main characters, privates, captains, secretaries, eyewitnesses and the like. You get a real upfront taste of what war is all about.

I am presently watching the DVD version of the original television documentary. I strongly recommend this over the worn out, gaptoothed, overpriced VHS offerings available on eBay. I paid $120 Cdn for five 2-sided DVD discs. This new release includes bonus material and is in full screen mode. The menus are easy to follow, there is first a choice of which episode you want to view and then after selecting that you are given the option of various chapters in the episode or to play the whole episode. It is understandable with such a comprehensive presentation there is a tiny amount more of navigation in the menu but the impact of what you will see is not diminished after 30 years, nay, after 60 years since the war finished.

I remember watching the first broadcast on the Buffalo PBS station just before moving from London in 1975 and wishing right from that time that I could have a copy. Now my wish has finally come true.

See this documentary. Tell your friends. Buy a copy for your library. Remember and honour the sacrifices and challenges overcome by those from America, Russia, Britain, Canada and all the other nations and peoples involved in the final victory. What an eye opener.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".

Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.

The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.

I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.

They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.

A real mess of a film from start to finish.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I have always admired Susan Sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. I therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. Her character's rescue from the South Pole was done by a Canadian charter company from Edmonton, Alberta flying a Canadian designed and built Twin Otter aircraft. The trip had been turned down by the US Airforce, Navy and Coast Guard as beyond their capabilities. The same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the South Pole base. I feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. I fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a USAF Hercules.