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

Answer: Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.

The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.

Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!!

After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!!

Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.

In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.

Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.

NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!

Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I'm not sure if Carpenter is looking to raise questions on abortion, and make the really heavy-handed and obvious point that a woman should be allowed an abortion if Satan is the father, but it drags on and on. Ron Perlman is laughable. The baby is really stupid looking, basically a crab with a baby head mounted on it. You can pretty much see the material on the Satan costume. What a mess. This episode has about five minutes of story and 55 minutes of tedium. Very, very bad. And the ending is just ridiculous. After learning his baby is dead, does the devil destroy the abortion clinic and kill everyone in a huge, bloody, gory, uproar? NO! He just puts his head down and sulks out of the room. Terrible.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: this movie was definitely the worst movie i've seen in my entire life, and i've seen some pretty bad movies. i didn't like the way this movie was filmed. all of the actors are unknown, and it looks as though a bunch of friends got together and decided to film their own movie. but it's absolutely horrible. i've never seen a worse movie. the story is so fake, and i just found that it took a really long time to get to the end of the movie. there was no plot, it looked as though it wasn't planned out before they started filming. the story is too weird. i didn't like how slow it took to get to the point of the movie. there was no point in even filming this movie. if you're considering watching this movie, don't. you're just wasting your time.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.

Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I saw this film in Winnipeg recently - appropriate, given the location used. I first read Lawrence's book back in the 70's and for me, it's always been a very powerful picture of the trials of aging in our society. It resonated when I was young, and it resonates even more now. When the film came out, I was keen to see if the story could survive. and was thoroughly impressed, especially with Ellen Burstyn's performance. She manages to give us a complete human being, even though the character is generally cranky and judgmental - someone that you wouldn't want to live with. It's great to be able to see favourite characters come to life so authentically.