Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas. The documentary style works very well for the first half of the movie. The landscapes are beautiful, and the daily life activities of the islanders are interesting to watch. The film loses momentum, though, when it begins to concentrate more on the narrative story of two doomed lovers. The storyline just never gets that interesting, despite being handled well by Murnau. Won an Academy Award for best cinematography, although the award probably should have been for best scenery. You can't really credit the DP for getting to shoot in such a beautiful location.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noel-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.

Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.

I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.

The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.

With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.

So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008.