Q: *** May contain spoilers. ***

If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.

As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as "near sleep."

Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.

And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.

Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I have been a fervent Hal Hartley supporter since I saw his short "Surviving Desire" in high school, and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant "Henry Fool." But this 10-year-later sequel is not only unnecessary, it's disgraceful.

After a choppy and expeditious start, "Fay Grim" devolves into pseudo-intellectualism, flat out boredom, and finally unwarranted - and unwanted - nihilism. And that's just the plot.

The majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly-developed as the movie: one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous Henry Fool himself, and it's his only spoken scene in the film!

Jeff Goldblum's Agent Fulbright, it seems, is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by Hartley as well). How, then, is he left? **SPOILER** Dead via a car bombing, easily making this the gentle-natured Hartley's most violent film to date, and tonally all wrong in a film that's already all wrong from the word go.

As for the other new characters, Angus James, Ned Fool (or is it Grim?), not to mention Fay herself... well, I won't spoil their fates, as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn't busying itself with yet another godawful canted angle, which gives the disconcerting impression that Hartley is moving backwards from Auteur to crappy film student).

This piece is a complete disaster, a dreadful mess that isn't even good-humored enough to revel in its messiness. Instead it self-indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the "real world", one uglier and meaner than it need be but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to having anything to say. In doing so, Hartley tracks sh*t all over my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them.

I have rarely been so depressed at the movies, and I'm counting "Leaving Las Vegas," which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them, instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved.

Grim, indeed. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I only wish that Return of the Jedi, have been directed by somebody else, I mean, there is far too much ewoks scenes, completely unnecessary. Besides this time our heroes look like different people: Princess Leia no longer fights with Solo, Luke looks boring, Darth Vader is not as evil as before, and Yoda just dies.

But there are many extraordinary things going on this episode that i just can't hate it.

SOME SPOILERS 1- Jabba the hut 2- The Sail Barge attack sequence. 3-The emperor (now that's evil) 4- The Speeders chase at the endor forest. 5-The Last Battle. 6-The Dark side seduction scene. 7-The return of Anakin to the good side of the force. 8- And the last celebration.

Some of those are so good that they can bring tears to your eyes. If some scenes would have been cut, and another director was hired, this would have been as perfect as episode 4 and 5, but still is extraordinary. 9 out of 10. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive