Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Like many people here, I started out finding my patience being tried by this film. By the end, I actually shed a few tears.

It seems to be in the nature of most old films to drag for 7/8th length and then catch fire right at the end. Older film-goers learned to bide their time patiently through the slow parts, calm in the knowledge that the big payoff is on the way. But that isn't quite accurate. You see, to earlier audiences, what are to us the "slow parts" were the main body of the story. They watched and found anecdotal and thematic interest there. Modern audiences, post-Spielberg, are in a constant state of waiting to be hit with a small climax every two minutes when they see older films. It's the inflation problem of modern movies. Well, that isn't going to happen. It is not necessary to apologize for these films; it is simply that you have to adjust your expectations and personal rhythm when you watch them. At this point, the difference between Avatar and The Informer is like the difference between Euripides and a traveling production of Rent. Think about it for a minute or two. Not to strain at the obvious, but Euripides still deserves a hearing.

The "exciting part", for most modern viewers, begins with the IRA tribunal scene and escalates to the final couple of minutes, which, if you are at all on board or even paying attention by that time, will tear your heart out. It's not some high-tone universal abstract plea for forgiveness; it's a plea from one dimwit, and those who feel sorry for the big lummox, for a little mercy. It's that personal, and that embarrassingly naked an appeal. For after being mad at Gypo, irritated at him, thinking this is the dumbest character of all time, you finally find yourself won over by the scene of Gypo's erstwhile girlfriend pleading to another woman to talk her man into going easy him.

The film may be sentimental, but the sentimentality is not cheap as some here have charged. There's a matter of life and death that plays out here, and as long as you take the proposition of one life to a customer seriously, it's sentimentality wrung out of the most serious stuff.

8 of 10. And the fault for it not being 10 of 10 is my own and in some measure yours, if you are reading this. We have all asked for more, ever more, faster, ever faster until we cannot put ourselves in 1935 -- just yesterday, really -- as easily as we should be able.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.

Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole"

"Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.

No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.

I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door.

What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something?

Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: {rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}

The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.

In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Shazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read "cameo") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight ("Newman!"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of "Mork and Mindy" starring Tim Allen.........................................................