Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Time for a rant, eh: I thought Spirit was a great movie to watch. However, there were a few things that stop me from rating it higher than a 6 or 7 (I'm being a little bit generous with the 7).

Point #1: Matt Damon aggravates me. I was thinking, 'what a dicky voice they got for the main character,' when I first heard him narrate - and then I realized it is Matt Damon. The man bugs me so very bad - his performance in "The Departed" was terrible and ruined the movie for me (before the movie got a chance to ruin itself, but that's another story for some other time), as it almost did "Spirit". I was able to get past this fact because of how little narration there actually was... thankfully.

Point #2: Brian Adams sucks... The whole score was terrible... The songs were unoriginal, generic, and poorly executed; not once did I find the music to fit; and the lyrics were terrible. Every time one of the lame songs came on, I was turned off. I almost thought I'd start hearing some patriotic propaganda slipped into the super-American freedom style lyrics (I couldn't help but be reminded of those terrible patriotic songs that played on the radio constantly after 9/11). In light of the native American aspects of the film, they should have gone with fitting music using right instruments, not petty radio-hit, teen-bop, 14-year-old-girl crap. I thought I was back in junior high school. I can't believe no better could have been done--I refuse to. Had it not have been for this, I'd rank the film up more with Disney, which knows a thing or two about originality (ok, don't bother saying what I know some of you are probably thinking ;). Too bad, it's a shame they couldn't have hired better musicians.

I liked the art and animation, except for some things here and there... like sometimes the angles appear too sharp on the face and the lines too thick or dark on the body (thick/dark lines mainly near the end). There were often times when I thought they _tried too hard_ on the emotion and facial expressions and failed at drawing any real emotion. But there were also times when the emotion ran thick. Anyhow, many scenes were lazy and the layers were apparent.

OK, I'm falling asleep here so I'll sum it up before I start making less sense...

Nice try on an epic film... it turned out mediocre though. Matt Damon, you suck!
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.

Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.

Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way "upatz." He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as "media." He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.

Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from "Antigone," which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.

That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, "I hate her." She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in "Repulsion." The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.

A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.

The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.

Worth it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film was made in 1943 when i think Judy was at her peak (looks wise). In her previous film For Me and My Gal people often say that she looks emaciated. Well in this film she looks perfect. She is beautiful and shows that she has a flair for comedy.

I think this film is hilarious, especially at the beginning when she is trying to arrange an audition with John Thornway. One of the funniest scene's in my opinion is Judy's rendition of Lady Macbeth and when John is looking for her at the party to give her a spanking (Lol).

One criticism i do have is that there is a hole in the plot when John and Lily fall in love. I mean one minute he despises her and the next they are going out on a date then the next time they meet after that date they are in love.

Another point i didn't like was on opening night. If i were Lily i would be furious with John but she isn't...it just doesn't make sense.

But all in all i would have to give this film a 10 because it is just wonderful and almost perfect.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I have never seen any of Spike Lee's prior films, as their trailers never caught my interest. I have seen, and admire Denzel Washington, and Jodie Foster's work, and have several of their DVDs. I was, however, entirely disappointed with this movie. If this film is any indication of Spike Lee's ability as a director, my advice would be to "get a job", and stop wasting the time and talent of others.

I wonder if some of the other IMDb commentators watched the same movie that I'd seen. I can only assume, from their sappy lovelorn reviews, that their adoration of Spike Lee has blinded them to the banality of this piece of work. I only paid $2.50, in a "Second Run" theater, and still felt I'd wasted my money.

The IMDb "Trivia" page says it all.......

* "Shot in 39 days" -- How can you expect to shoot a big budget "Blockbuster", (as the media hype promised), in such a short time? No wonder there was such a weak performance by all.

* "Ron Howard was first going to direct the film..." -- He may have done this project some justice, given more time to do so, of course. Though the writing was atrocious, the premise had some merits.

OK! maybe not. I'm sorry! This film was so rife with pitiful cliche's, implausible scenes, and lousy characterizations, that maybe even he couldn't have made much of it. (Hey Ron! Be sure to thank Russell...Good call!)

* "Jodie Foster filmed her part in three weeks." -- And it showed! Her portrayal of a "Fixer", who makes people's problems go away, was as unbelievable as the script she was given. Did she even want to be there?

Other Peeves:

* How many bank robbers would bother to come to the door, and inform a uniformed police officer that they were inside robbing the bank, and he'd better keep away...or else?

* When "Detective Frazier", (Denzel Washington), comes into the bank to verify there are no corpses yet, how many bank robbers, without a gun, would have "led" a cop, (much less "let" a cop) back out to the front door, allowing the police officer to walk behind him?

* Det. Frazier later claimed, to have given the robber "every reason to shoot me." Why, then, in their brief struggle, didn't he even try to expose the robber's face? That may have gotten the response he was looking for...a robber would have shot him just to prevent later identification. And why did it take "Steve, Stevie, Steve-O", (the robber's accomplice), so long to come and help out?

* I understand that these weren't your typical bank robbers. They had a different agenda, and didn't want anyone harmed. But the cops had no reason to think that they wouldn't. To them it was a desperate situation. Why then, when two of the bad guys stepped outside to "pick up the pizzas?", were they not taken down. (first of all, how many robbers would have came outside without using a hostage as a shield? Is this Spike Lee's version of NY City, or SNL's?). Taking them down would have reduced the bad guy's numbers, screwed up their plans, and the remaining robbers would more probably have given up. If not, there at least would be fewer bad guys inside. (Give SWAT something to do, or send them home!)

* What police department in this country, would have allowed Madeline White, (Jodie Foster), to just waltz right into the bank, and discuss a matter with the robbers, that she would not disclose to them first? She had no authority, no governmental credentials; and besides, this was after all, "already" a hostage situation...add one more?

* Why wouldn't the Bank CEO, (Christopher Plummer), just have destroyed the incriminating documents a long time ago? Screw sentimentality! The diamonds, he could have sold.

* Who was that "schmuck", (the character, not the actor), with the Jersey accent, that, conveniently, volunteered, and said he knew the recording was "100% Albanian", but yet he himself couldn't speak it.....SIR! PUT YOUR HAND DOWN! And his Ex-wife! What a "schlump" she was!!! Both were totally unbelievable.

* When interrogating suspects, why did Det. Frazier, continually harass the individuals who were obviously not a part of the heist?, (i.e. - telling the elderly woman she could go, and then she couldn't, then could; then couldn't?) Give me a break!

* Who, after seeing the bank robbers demand that the hostages put on jump suites, couldn't deduce their escape plan included coming out of the bank pretending to be some of the hostages?

* Near the end of the movie, a false wall was shown to have been built in the supply room, behind which Clive Owens hid out for "a week"....where did the materials come from? (the drywall & studs). It was also to be assumed that they cut into the sewer, so he could relieve himself. The bank employees hadn't complained about the smell, all week long? Hello!

* After such a debacle; since the documents "had" fallen into the robber's hands, what kind of "references" was Ms. White expecting to get from the bank CEO, seeing that he was now to be a target for blackmail, due to her failure?

* And last, but certainly not least, What's with the "Electric Glide" that Denzel did? HOW STUPID! Was that supposed to indicate his "resolve" to bring these guys to justice? He looked, rather, like a man who hopped a ride on a shopping cart, while trying to prevent a bowel movement! "Cheeee-Zheeee"!!!!

Other than the mediocre plot; lousy script; bad acting; and overall pitiful directing......yada, yada, yada.

Hopefully this will give enough insight into the movie to help others decide whether to waste their money or not!

.