Title: Poor in any context
Product review: I occasionally write a review of a movie so poorly done simply to save people time and money. I rented this "new" because the movie I wanted was out and the previews and cover looked good - i.e. I like Sutherland and Slater. This was a dog of a movie even in the "straight to video" group, which are usually badly done yet sometimes mildly entertaining. This story was poorly written and by example, it hurts nothing to know that the psychologist (or whatever) role was so scattered as to make no sense; and Sutherland was in it a total of five minutes. There were at least three, perhaps four extended belly-dancing scenes and another "musical" scene where Slater played the guitar while the woman sang. Without those this would have just been a horrible hour-long movie. As it stands, it's an 88 minute insult to the viewers intelligence and a disgrace to the actors that lent their names to this trash.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
