input: Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.

Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.

Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: What would you expect from a film titled 'Surviving Christmas'and presented as 'festive fun', something like Ghandi or English patient? There are lots of things I love about this film, it's funny, it is very well cast and it is superbly written. I came to the film as a Kaplan/Elfort fan but was dubious when I read the plot, it sounded ridiculous. But the film doesn't come across like that because Affleck (as Drew Latham) plays his part perfectly, one minute a child-like adult, the next a mature man who realises he has gained everything in life apart from what he really wants. In fact we see Latham grow up in this film, when he encounters the problems of those he envies and realises that their lives are not so good, he sees that his own lot is not so bad.

This film has fewer weak or dud scenes than many other comedies I have seen. Comedy is so much harder than any other type of drama, it either works or it doesn't and very few comedy writers get it correct every time.I particularly loved the drama scene, where the family take to reading parts written by Latham . The pleasure is in the reaction of Tom Valco (James Gandolfini) and the comments of Brian Valco (Josh Zuckerman). It is the dilemma of the greedy Tom Valco who has to bite his tongue, wear silly hats or sing to the Christmas tree in order to earn the prize money that keeps the film moving along well.

The addition of daughter Alicia (Christina Applegate) into the story brings a delightful romantic angle, and why not in a Christmas film? Of course its corny and contrived; he's rich and handsome, she's beautiful and single, and so inevitably her and Afflect end up falling over together in the snow and finding themselves face to face. Great! One thing I would have liked was more use of festive music to boost the atmosphere but I can't really complain. I got what I wanted.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Ranarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.

Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.

As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).

In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I liked this movie a lot. It really intrigued me how Deanna and Alicia became friends over such a tragedy. Alicia was just a troubled soul and Deanna was so happy just to see someone after being shot. My only complaint was that in the beginning it was kind of slow and it took awhile to get to the basis of things. Other than that it was great.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive