Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It's a colorful slasher movie. That's about it.

It has the mystery element that SCREAM made so popular in slasher movies, but I never care for such things. Figuring out who's the bad guy is not that interesting considering the clues are all misleading anyway.

The death scenes were inventive and gorey, bringing back memories of 80's horror movies like Friday the 13th.

Another nice thing about this movie is that it's hard to pinpoint the surviving girl, unlike in SCREAM and IKWYDLS where it was obvious.

People who don't like slasher movies won't like this movie. As simple as that. I truly enjoyed it and I plan to watch it again while waiting for more of the same.

--MB
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: THIS IS BY FAR MY MOST FAVOURITE MOVIE IN THE WORLD!!!!! I enjoyed it when I was 4 and I still enjoy it at 16!! Its an absolute masterpiece! No video collection is complete without it!!! I enjoy every second of it and not only does the film have some great special affects but its sends a great message to the youngsters of the audience which may sound sheesy but in actual fact the movie is done very COOLY in actual fact! Although Michael Jackson has been in afew movies now, people still dont see him as an actor. In reality he's the most talented actor I know! He's so talented! He's incredible!!! MOONWALKER IS A MUST SEE!!!!!!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as "Mitchell in Malta." At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.

Don't spend the time on this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was "preaching to the converted," not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its "rat" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of "Well, Jewish people are like that too." Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called "Hebrew" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's "spin" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a "5" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say "That's what I meant to do all along!" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate.