Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: I studied Charlotte Bronte's novel in high school, and it left me with a stunning impression. Here was a beautiful novel about a young woman's struggle to find love and acceptance in the dark times of Victorian England. This young woman was Jane Eyre, a poor and plain character with a strong mind and will of her own. Her story, which Bronte told through Jane's own eyes, was both sad and inspiring.

As part of our study, we watched the 1983 adaptation of the story, and it blew me away. The mini-series not only made the effort to stay true to Bronte's original text and the essence of the story, but the actors who portrayed the characters were just great. Both Zelah Clarke (Jane Eyre) and Timothy Dalton (Jane's lover, by the name of Rochester) captured brilliantly the essence of their characters. I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. (The other performances of Rochester in other versions such as the 2006 version lack the passion, energy, and tenderness needed to portray Rochester accurately. I say that Timothy Dalton comes out on top because he possesses all these characteristics in his portrayal of Rochester. Zelah Clarke not only looks like Jane Eyre, but she captures Jane's quiet, but firm and passionate nature brilliantly. She holds in her emotions, like the Jane of the book, at the appropriate moments in the story but allows her fire to come out in Jane's passionate scenes. The chemistry that Clarke and Dalton portray in their scenes together is also credible and true to Jane and Rochester's devoted relationship.) As well, the supporting actors also fit their roles perfectly, and the sets fit the Gothic nature of the story.

I strongly recommend this version of the classic Bronte tale. If you have not read the book before, then you can watch this production as a faithful introduction to this beautiful story.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: I admit I had some trepidation when I first saw the previews for this film. Was VH-1 treading on hollow ground here? I mean, Harris and Quinn don't really look or even sound like John or Paul. But I have to admit, this film really surprised me. It's far from the exploitation film I expected. Instead, it's a character study, a low-key, whimsical, and ultimately bittersweet look at friendship, and the ultimate lesson we all learn: it's hard, if not impossible, to capture what we once had, and what has passed us by.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.