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

Answer: The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.

Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result particularly in this bastardized edition is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!!

The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.

Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Wow. A truly fantastic 'trip' movie that has tons of super-surreal imagery, dark intent and a black, pretty strange sense of how cartoon animals must see the world. It's populated with a very cute off-world bunch of characters that bend and flow with warped backgrounds.As with all cool fantasy, the wandering plot is secondary to the eye-popping visuals and we follow a little cat and his zombie sister as they encounter death, deluge, water elephants, samurai swordsmen and pigs that fish. I'd never heard of it, but now I love it - probably because it reminded me of the surreal pencil-work of American cartoonist; Bill Plympton. It's a demented delight for fans of odd, pretty things and it had me glued to the screen for fear I'd miss something amazing. Simply put, it's 'Hello Kitty' without the 'o'.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie is without a doubt a perfect 10/10.. for all you people out there who are rating this film low grades because it has no "good plot" or anything like that, thats ridiculous, saying that a Jackie Chan movie is bad because of its plot is like saying a porn movie is bad because it has no plot! you watch Jackie Chan FOR THE FIGHT SCENES, for the action its not so much concentrated on a good story or anything like that, if you look at how he makes movies and compare it to other American films from that era and even later you will realize that Jackie Chan's movies had over the top fights scenes and not really good plots while American movies had good plots but shitty action scenes compared to what Jackie Chan was doing at the time. Porn is watched for the porn, Jackie Chan is watched for the ACTION, i think you people are rating it bad because there's no plot because you think thats how a smart movie critic would rate a good movie but the way i see it is a good movie is a movie that can keep me entertained. Sure the middle of the movie was boring, VERY BORING, but put it this way the rest which is all action scenes and stunts very much do pay for all of that. This did change the way how American action movies were created, they have even stollen scenes from this movie. If you want a true man, a true entertainer then watch this movie and many more of Jackie Chan's, hes pure in everyway. He literally makes American movies look like a walk in the park, and even in TODAYS movies. American movies rely so much on special effects and safety wires and stunt doubles and so much more. Police Story and many other Jackie Chan films are pieces of work of a true entertainer who just goes all out and is very talented in what he can do. a masterpiece
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "I'm a cartoon!" "You're an illustration!" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable "that he's a the Page Master" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull plot!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I have three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.

Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.

Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).

The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to say.