Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: The Dukes of Hazzard is quite an achievement a $53m film that's worse than any given episode of a downmarket 25-year old TV show. The plot is serviceable enough but the mindless fun is rarely to be found and the casting is pretty atrocious: Johnny Knoxville is more passenger than protagonist, M.C. Gainey's Sheriff Roscoe is a bland thug, Michael Weston's Enos tiresome, a seemingly ideally-cast Willie Nelson just seems to be waiting for the check to clear and Burt Reynolds, stuck in some purgatory where he's doomed to relive his old movies as a bit player, is a curious choice for Boss Hogg to say the least but does have one good moment with a heckler and a hundred dollar bill. You know a film is in trouble when Seann William Scott and Jessica Simpson are the most charismatic screen presences But worse than the script or the casting is Jay Chandrasekhar's hopeless direction: seemingly born with no conception of comic timing, unable to do much more than basic two-shots and seemingly clueless as to how to shoot a car chase let alone the couple of decent stunts in the film, he seems determined to sap the film of any signs of life before they materialise. There are a couple of neat post-modern moments revolving around the Confederate Flag and Daisy's stereotypical role in every episode, but no film that makes you pine for the days when Hal Needham was directing this sort of thing (and badly) can be a good thing.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I do admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view, nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception, it may have been a brilliant horror/thriller movie.

Beginning on Halloween night 1968, 6 year old Michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. Michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again.

From this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. The beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing Michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie, thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow.

For the horror/thriller enthusiast, there is a severe lack of blood/gore compared to modern day films although I am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. A happier medium could have been found.

From a half hour into the movie, not one scene is unexpected. The acting for a horror/thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast.

A positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. A second positive would be the character of Michael's doctor, who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead.

However, it is clear that the star, in Jamie-Lee Curtis, is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim.

It is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day, but from other horror/thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent, the 90s, it falls far short of a truly great horror/thriller film.

I suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. Cheers!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
THE MELTING MAN...a tragic victim of the space race, he perished MELTING...never comprehending the race had LONG GONE BY...!

A man (Burr DeBenning) burns his hand on the kitchen stove. But instead of screaming something a NORMAL person would scream, he shouts something that sounds like "AAAAATCH-KAH!!" This movie you've popped in...isn't a normal movie. You've just taken your first step into THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, the famous late-70's gore film featuring Rick Baker's wonderful makeup effects. Baker was just on the edge of becoming a superstar, and did this at the same time as his famous "cantina aliens" in STAR WARS. For some strange reason, STAR WARS became a household name, and INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN did not.

It might have something to do with the fact that this movie is just mind-numbingly awful. From the opening credits ("Starring Alex Rebar as THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN"...that's really what it says!), to the chubby nurse running through a glass door, to the fisherman's head going over a waterfall and smashing graphically apart on some rocks, this film provides many, many moments of sheer incomprehensibility. "Why did they...but how come he...why are they...?" After a while, you give up wondering why and watch it as what it is--a very entertaining piece of garbage.

An astronaut returns to Earth in a melting, radioactive condition; he escapes and, his mind disintegrating as well as his body, begins a mad melting killing spree. The authorities quickly decide that the melting man must be stopped, but (probably not wanting to "cause a panic") want him captured as quietly as possible. So they send one guy with a geiger counter after him. Wow.

Storywise, surprisingly little happens during the movie. The melting guy wanders around killing people. A doctor searches for him with a geiger counter. Various characters are introduced, ask questions, and leave. Eventually the doctor catches up with the melting man, but is shot by a security guard for no reason, after he explains that he's "Dr. Ted Nelson." The melting man wanders off and finally dissolves into a big puddle of goo. The End.

It's so brainless that it somehow ends up being a lot of fun, despite a fairly downbeat ending. Supposedly, a widescreen DVD release is planned. A very special movie.