Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: If Hollywood is to be believed, being in the the Navy is nothing but a bludge. Though the sailors may complain in chorus about the monotony of the ocean, it seems that their oceanic duties are completely non-existent, and somehow Fred Astaire finds enough free time during the day to offer dancing classes to a fleet of would-be romantics. Such is the world of Astaire and Rogers. Mark Sandrich's previous film, 'Top Hat (1935),' completely ignored the Great Depression that was then bringing America to its knees, and presented audiences with a glittering world of the rich and famous; it was the film's optimistic outlook on life that perhaps contributed to its success. Likewise, here Sandrich deliberately forgets that the life of a Naval officer is difficult and draining, and instead substitutes the duties of a sailor with an assortment of catchy lightweight musical numbers.

"Bake" Baker (Astaire) and Sherry Martin (Rogers) are two former dance partners whose romantic relationship fell apart after the latter rejected a marriage proposal. After Bake returns from several years of duty in the Navy, he finds Sherry as dance hostess in an unsophisticated San Francisco ballroom. While the two former lovers alternately attempt to woo and rebuff each other, Sherry's plain, music-teacher sister (Harriet Hilliard, looking really quite pretty) receives a complete makeover and tries to charm superficial sailor Bilge "Bilgey" Smith (Randolph Scott). There are plenty of the usual screwball comedy shenanigans, a few moments of mistaken identity, and even a hilarious trained monkey that steals every scene it's in. Particularly amusing is the scene in which Bake sabotages a performer's audition in order to create a window for his estranged girl; unluckily for both of them, it is an unfortunate Sherry who drinks the bicarbonate of soda and loses her ability to sing.

'Follow the Fleet (1936)' was the fifth winning collaboration between Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, and the third (of five) in which Sandrich directed the pair. Irving Berlin provided the film's music and lyrics, and each musical number is enjoyably lighthearted and entertaining, even if they aren't quite as memorable as those in 'Top Hat (1935),' 'Swing Time (1936)' or 'Shall We Dance (1937).' Astaire attempts to break free from his typical rich-man-about-town persona, without much success, but it's hard to imagine the performer without the boyish carefree charm that could only accompany being considerably wealthy. The side-plot of the romance between Connie and Bilge works well with the antics of the two main stars, and Harriet Hilliard (wearing a brunette wig to avoid clashing with Ginger's blonde hair) has a couple of emotional solo numbers, including "Get Thee Behind Me Satan," which was originally written for 'Top Hat.'

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Kalifornia is the story of a writer and his girlfriend photographer who are looking for someone to help pay gas money and take turns at the wheel for a cross country road trip to famous murder sights. Ironically a serial killer and his girlfriend answer the post. Kalifornia is a diamond in the rough and a very intriguing journey with a serial killer. Great performances all around by the leads with Pitt in particular being exceptional. Check it out!!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliche, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.

*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********

On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?

I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.

As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Hood of the living Dead is about a young scientist named Rick who lives with his brother in the town of Oklahoma where drug dealers and prostitutes fill the streets. Then one night, Rick's brother gets shot by a gang driving down the street who fought with him earlier. Desperate, Rick calls his scientist partner to bring over the latest formula they've been working on that brings sick blood cells to health. The formula hasn't been tested on a human, or even a dead body but Rick is determined to bring his brother back to life. He gives the body a double dose of the formula but nothing happens. So Rick calls 911 and the body is carted away only for it to come back to life and feast on human flesh. Now Rick must find his zombie brother before the whole hood is transformed into a neighborhood of the dead. Hood of the living Dead is one piece of trash. The plot is a direct rip off of Resident Evil, the acting is just horrible especially with Rick' s fake crying for his brother, the guns are so fake because every time the weapon is fired it sends sparks out, and the make up is just lame. It's only fake blood covered over the actors face. The zombies are also modified. They run, growl, and must be shot in the heart to die! Zombies should only scuffle, moan, and must be shot in the brain to die! This film is so horrible, the outtakes is the only true good moment of this film. Hood of the Living Dead gets a 3 out of 10, a little entertainment here and there but it only succeeds as a low budget cringe fest.