"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.
If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).
So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).
2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.
3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).
Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of \"tension and release\" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.
4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.
In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben
\n
assistant\n1
\n"