Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: With few exceptions, most of George Bernard Shaw's plays have virtually disappeared from the theater these days. Too arch, too talky appears to be the general verdict. This BBC version of one of Shaw's funniest plays doesn't refute that verdict. It is certainly arch and talky, but it is also wonderful. And because of the quality of British theater, it is perfectly cast with actors whom -- with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter -- most of us have probably never heard of. Carter is splendid as the Bulgarian girl who shelters the professional "chocolate soldier" (Pip Torrens) and later falls in love with him. One might quarrel with the especially ridiculous interpretation of Sergius (Patrick Ryecart), the Bulgarian cavalry officer who led the charge into the enemy's lines and succeeded only because the enemy had the wrong ammunition for its machine guns. However, the role invites over-acting and Ryecart was obviously told to over-act. The other players are letter perfect. Carter as the self-dramatizing Bulgarian "aristocrat" and Torrens as the Swiss soldier-of-fortune are at the play's center, of course, and they are wonderful. Yes, "Arms and the Man" comes across as a filmed play. But you're unlikely ever to see a Shaw film that doesn't betray its origin. The plots are generally clever. However, Shaw is all about the dialog. The action is minimal (even in St. Joan) and the sets are immaterial. Enjoy this for what it is.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I took a flyer in renting this movie but I gotta say, it was very, very good. On all fronts: script, cast, director, photography, and high production values, etc. Proves Eva Longoria Parker is head and shoulders in rom/com above bad actors such as Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, who mug and call it acting. Who'da thunk it?

Parker and Isla Fisher are in a class by themselves in this regard and should try to hold out for projects as good as "Over Her Dead Body." Lake Bell is excellent, too, and this is the first time I have seen her. And finally, Paul Rudd gets to shine in a really good movie, instead of lesser films.

A movie like this never gets its dues from close-minded males. It's too bad. As other IMDb reviewers here have noted, there is nothing lame about this gem --no hack writing or acting.

And its depiction of contemporary L.A. and California, in general, makes every scene look bright, beautiful, clean, and otherwise outstanding in every way. Never before has a movie made L.A. look so good. Ah, what a little talent and a lot of caring can do for a movie.

I won't divulge the plot, but as a long-time and hard-core atheist, I was willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the supernatural theme in order to enjoy an excellent and light-hearted piece of entertainment. It reminds me very much of the old "Topper" movies, which were also so enjoyable.

This movie exposes popular, but otherwise hackneyed, movies like "Ghost" for the mediocre and overly sentimental crap fests they are. We already know the public taste leans heavily toward the mediocre. Some of us save our praise for the truly worthy, however.

If you have enjoyed other overlooked gems such as "Into the Night" with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum and Clu Gulager, "Blind Date" with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger, "American Dreamer" with JoBeth Williams, "Chances Are" with Robert Downey Jr., Christopher McDonald and Cybil Sheppard, "Making Mr. Right" with John Malkovich, etc., you'll enjoy this.

A first-rate job all around (even if it's kinda hard to believe a straight guy can pretend to be gay for more than five years.) But even that plot device doesn't detract from the movie's overall excellence.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.

Who greenlit this mess?

I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.

Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.