input: Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies.

Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars.

It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.

I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.

I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen.

About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended...

To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked.

Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The first was good and original. I was a not bad horror/comedy movie. So I heard a second one was made and I had to watch it.

What really makes this movie work is Judd Nelson's character and the sometimes clever script. A pretty good script for a person who wrote the Final Destination films and the direction was okay. Sometimes there's scenes where it looks like it was filmed using a home video camera with a grainy-look.

Great made-for-TV movie. It was worth the rental and probably worth buying just to get that nice eerie feeling and watch Judd Nelson's Stanley doing what he does best.

I suggest newcomers to watch the first one before watching the sequel, just so you'll have an idea what Stanley is like and get a little history background.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I really enjoyed the detail that went into the script.

Jonathan Rhys Myers (misspelled) and Jewel were outstanding in their support roles. As was Jeffery Wright. Toby McGuire gave as fine a acting job as ever depicted, when he had to amputate his best friend's arm, knowing he would die without the procedure.

Attention to detail, with good dialect coaching to catch the Southern accent incredibly well.

Why this movie was swept under the rug by the Hollywood promoters I can only imagine. I have strong suspicions. Which makes it all the more appealing to me. I have given a dozen DVD copies out for presents.

Completely overlooked movie. Rent or buy it and give it your full attention for a couple of hours, then judge.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: IQ is a cute romantic comedy featuring two great actors that seem to click well on screen. Plot is a typical guy wrong for girl, guy gets girl format, but makes the solid point that one must love with the heart and not the the mind. Addition of Albert Einstein and his band of geniuses provides excellent comic relief. Overall, a good movie. Not great, but good

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive