Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Kim (Patricia Clarkson), George (Jake Weber) and son Miles (Erik Per Sullivan) are headed to the country for winter weekend relief from Manhattan's bustling metropolis. On the way, they hit a buck and end up stuck in the snow. A group of hunters who were tracking the buck come along. Rather than helping, at least one of the hunters, Otis (John Speredakos), is mad because the accident cracked the buck's antlers. George, Kim and Miles are disturbed by Otis, and even worse, we quickly learn that Otis has learned where they're staying. Meanwhile, Miles is given a wendigo (a kind of Indian shape-shifting spirit/monster) token by an Indian whom only he has seen. Is Otis a psycho out to get our heroes? Are there wendigos in the woods?

I can see where Wendigo would have a number of problems appealing to viewers. It is a fairly low budget film, with technical limitations frequently showing through. Much of the film, and maybe all of it, is not really about the titular creature. And perhaps the fatal blow for many people, it has a very ambiguous ending, with a number of questions left unanswered. If you are discouraged by such endings, and you do not like films that have an aim of making you think about and discuss what everything meant, do yourself a favor and avoid Wendigo.

Personally, I like films like that. I usually prefer some ambiguity. The marketing of Wendigo is geared towards those who want a quick, scary creature flick, where they'd expect a grand battle with some supernatural monster who is defeated in the end, and everything is tied up neatly except for an opening for Wendigo 2: The Monster Returns, but that's not what this film is. Wendigo is much more thoughtful and poetic than the surface of such a creature flick would suggest to most people. Heck, writer/director Larry Fessenden even has a character, George, reciting Robert Frost. The Frost poem, and George's comment that Frost can evoke complex imagery and atmosphere out of seemingly simple things, is the key to the film.

One of the best things about the film is its complexity. In a way, there are four different films occurring at the same time, a thread from each character. In George's thread, he isn't exactly the happiest or most pleasant guy in the world, and he has some parenting problems. For him, the film is a realistic, horrific descent of his life going from bad to worse. In Patricia's thread, she's looking for rejuvenation of her life and family. She's a psychologist mostly denying the problems around her, hoping that they'll go away and get better. In Otis' thread, he's even more down on his luck than George, and George's arrival into his life symbolizes the final "crack" in his psychological armor. And in Miles' thread, which is probably the most important of the film, life is like a grand poem due to his youthful innocence and interpretation of the world. But this is a horror story, after all, albeit one with a glimmer of hope, and the events in the film give Miles' poetic interpretations a dark turn. Still, when everything is said and done, he seems to be the only one retaining his composure, due to the poetic outlook.

Even though the film is low budget, there are a lot of well-executed higher budget ambitions. Fessenden and director of photography Terry Stacey find some great shots in beautiful locations, and created some interesting slide show like montages (such as the cards, or the Indian wendigo images from the book). There are also interesting more traditional montages, such as Miles' nightmare. Wendigo is better shot and edited than many big budget films.

Other technical aspects are good for the budget. The "Wendigo" appearance at the end worked for me and was appropriately ambiguous. The lighting was usually good--there were a few times that dark scenes weren't as clear as they could have been, but it seemed to be more of a problem with the film stock (it could have been digital instead) or transfer. I thought the performances were good and far more realistic (if you value that) than the majority of films. Although I didn't really notice the score, it must have been okay, or I would have noticed it with a negative judgment.

Overall, Wendigo is a very good film that deserves to be watched without preconceptions, as long as you don't mind having to think about the movies you watch.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The second attempt by a New York intellectual in less than 10 years to make a "Swedish" film - the first being Susan Sontag's "Brother Carl" (which was made in Sweden, with Swedish actors, no less!) The results? Oscar Wilde said it best, in reference to Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of Little Nell." Pretty much the same thing here. "Interiors" is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers. ("I'm afraid of my anger." Looking into the middle distance: "I don't like who I'm becoming.") The directorial quotations (to use a polite term) from Bergman are close to parody. The incredibly self-involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are, to the point of strangulation. ("I read a poem of yours the other day. It was in - I don't know - The New Yorker." "Oh. That was an old poem. I reworked it.") Far from not caring about these people, however, I found them quite hilarious. Much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from Allen's earlier films - only he's directed his actors to play the lines straight. Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity").

The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's "Winter Light," the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst. It all comes through in the shopworn visual/aural tricks: the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper, the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach. etc, etc.

Allen's later "serious" films are less embarrassing, but also far less entertaining. I'll take "Interiors." Woody's rarely made a funnier movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Raggedy Ann & Andy is the first movie I ever saw in the theaters. My dad took my sister and I, and the funny thing is - when we got home, dad asked us "what do you want to do now?" and we said we want to watch Raggedy Ann & Andy again! lol, and my dad actually took us back to the theatre to watch it again -- at least that's how I remember it. I was five years old at the time.

This movie was pretty scary for a five year old. The scene with the giant ocean of sweets, and the hypnotic camel scene.. i don't remember a lot from this film, naturally, the beginning was magical, and a few scenes -- I wish I could find it again, and will likely seek it out now.

I remember I loved Raggedy Ann & Andy.