Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a "B" or "C" movie. It is a "Z" movie - but an enjoyable and fun "Z" movie!

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Parker and Stone transplant their pacy expletive-ridden humour from their animated masterpiece to a feature length live action film with generally good results. Much of the film is Trey and Matt running amok with their new toy box. The plot is simplicity itself: two average guys invent a new sport, a blend of driveway basketball with baseball scoring which becomes a national craze. Along the way they encounter numerous sporting movie cliches and send them up, along with any other bit of popular culture that comes into their sights. It runs like a stretched South Park episode, with the usual machine-gun dialogue, toilet humour and homilies from the heart.

If this film has a weakness it is the association with the team that gave us "Airplane" and the "Naked Gun" series. This influence is clearly seen with the heavy use of lame sight gags and the presence of a glossy and rather two-dimensional Yasmine Bleeth in the role usually given to Priscilla Presley. Robert Vaughn does a little better playing the corporate b**tard that has been his party piece ever since "Bullitt" and Ernest Borgnine overacts as only he can, but one must admit he's perfect for the role of the lunatic team owner.

For those who haven't noticed yet, Parker and Stone seem to be more comfortable as rock star wannabes than comics. This manifests in the prominence given to the soundtrack in just about everything they create. As usual, they give a good selection here including the obligatory track by their own ultra-non-PC vehicle DVDA.

A special mention must go to Dian Bachar, who deserves some sort of award for enduring the difficult job of playing Stan to Parker and Stone's rampaging pair of Cartmans.

In summary, this is an entertaining comedy which is held back from its full potential by too much reliance on the "Naked Gun/Airplane" formula. Parker and Stone could do something truly brilliant (or absolutely awful) if given full control over a future film. America, either lock these guys up or put them in charge.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.

For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.

Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.

There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.

Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.