Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years.

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld".

I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.

This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.

What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's "Dirty Harry" meets "M". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.

To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.

Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.

The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.

Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.

The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.

For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the "in-between" steps.

Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.

Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.

I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.

Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA!

Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick.

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)