Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Deanna Durbin really did save Universal from bankruptcy and enabled it to remain a big studio. By the mid 30s most of the big directors that had been at Universal eg Milestone, Browning and Wyler had gone. Only James Whale remained but his prestigious horror films were behind him. Deanna and Judy Garland appeared in a short "Every Sunday" and initially Garland was suggested for the role of Penny in "Three Smart Girls". When Garland was unavailable Universal switched to Durbin. Initially she had been definitely a supporting player but her potential was so vivid that the script was rewritten to make her the star. Directed by Henry Koster the film had a European touch.

The film starts with a beautiful panorama of a lake in "Switzerland". The "three smart girls" of the title - three sisters, Joan (Nan Grey), Kay (Barbara Read) and Penny (Deanna Durbin) are sailing with Penny giving her glorious voice to "My Heart is Singing". All is not too well on the home front - their father is planning to remarry a younger woman (Binnie Barnes) so the three girls with the help of their trusty nurse (Lucille Watson) decide to go to New York and reunite him with their mother. Lucille Watson is best remembered for her role as Robert Taylor's stern mother in "Waterloo Bridge" (1941).

Donna is a gold-digger who, along with her scatty mother (Alice Brady), is determined to marry Judson Craig (Charles Winninger). For someone with no film experience Deanna is wonderful as Penny, a typical pesky, over enthusiastic kid sister and she is as pretty as a picture. When she sings "Someone to Care for Me" to her father you will just melt - what a glorious voice she had. She also has one of the funniest lines in the film. When her father consoles her with "I'll take you to the zoo tomorrow", she replies "Oh I can see enough monkeys around here"!!!

With the help of Bill Evans (John King) they decide to hire a "count" (Mischa Auer)to romance Donna. They arrange to meet at a nightclub but due to a mix-up Lord Michael Stuart (Ray Milland) is mistaken for the count and Donna falls for him (she thinks he owns half of Australia!!!) The plan backfires as he falls for Kay and Donna wants to hasten her marriage to Judson.

Penny decides to take matters into her own hands and runs away. She is taken to the local police station where she charms the cops with her rendition of "Il Bacio" (she is trying to convince them she is a young opera singer.) Everything ends happily with their mother (Nella Walker) sailing over to patch things up with their dad and in the meantime Donna makes the acquaintance of the phoney count (Mischa Auer) and sails off to Australia with him.

Highly recommended.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Very nice action with an interwoven story which actually doesn't suck. Interesting enough to merit watching instead of skipping past to get to the good parts. Having Jenna Jameson and Asia Carrere helps liven it up, too. Jenna in that sweater and those glasses is just astounding! Worth picking up just to see her!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is moving without being sentimental - meaningful without being pretentious. It tells a simple story of a family in danger of falling apart as the encroachments of technology and an advancing society make the family-run business increasingly untenable.

The acting is wonderful - though none of us in the west are likely to have heard of these actors, we should have long ago - they play their characters with honesty and reverence - these are flawed characters, each with major weaknesses, but with such utter humanity and kindness that it's impossible not to become engaged in the story.

We need more films like this - we need more western filmmakers creating films such as this.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.

House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: A beautiful film, touching profoundly up the simple, yet divine aspects of humanity.

This movie was almost perfect, and seeing as nothing in this world can be truly perfect, that is pretty good. The only minor thing I subjectively object to, is the pacing at some points in the middle of the story. The acting is also very good, and all the actors easily top actors in high-profile films. The actual directing seems to have been well thought through, and the script must have been amazing. There are some truly breathtaking moments of foreshadowing, and a quite gorgeous continuing circular composition of the story.

The moment in the movie, when the main character achieves that feeling of being in heaven is the perfect ending to a truly brilliant yarn.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
...though for a film that seems to be trying to market itself as a horror, there was a distinct lack of blood.

There was also a distinct lack of skilled directing, acting, editing, and script-writing.

Jeremy London put in one of most appalling performances I've ever seen - his "descent into the maelstrom" of madness is achingly self-aware and clumsy. Oh look at him twitch! Oh look at him drink strong spirits! Oh look at him raise his brow, and cock his head at a jaunty angle! Oh look at his unwashed, greasy dark hair! Oh listen to his affectedly husky voice! He must be a tortured artist/writer/genius! Oh, yes, out comes the poet-shirt - it's another boy who thinks he's Byron. (Or Poe.) Oh for the love of... did someone give this guy a manual on "How To Act Good" or did they just pull him out of a cardboard box somewhere, the defunct little plastic toy-prize in a discontinued brand of bargain-bin cereal. Okay, that was a stupid line - but that's only because London's performance has melted my brain with its awfulness.

Katherine Heigl is cute, and very briar rose, but has yet to grow into her acting shoes in this film - she delivered her lines like she was being held up, in fact, her whole performance was very wooden, her poses as stiff as her lines - who knows, perhaps she was just reacting to, and trying to neutralise, Jeremy London's flailing excesses, but if that's the case, she takes it too far.

Notable is Arie Verveen as Poe - while his character's role is confused, he delivers the best performance of the piece. He, quite simply, looks right, but it's more than that - he has some sort of depth, I believed that he had a life beyond the dismal two-dimensional quality of the rest of the characters. Huh, maybe it's just because I like Poe, and could thus just let my mind wander and invent while he was on screen - whatever, he had an interest factor otherwise missing.

The rest of the characters are a faceless blur - there are all the usual caricatures: the perky blonde best-friend who's a bit of a floozy; the smitten local cop who's a bit of a dork; the protective older man who perhaps has too much un-fatherly interest in our heroine; the scheming old witch, etc., etc., yawn, yawn.

As with the 'distinct lack of blood for a horror movie' issue, none of the themes that they mention (and that London's character mentions - so scathingly - in his attack on Poe's writing) are followed through on. As another reviewer said - there was potential here: murder, incest, - genuinely shocking stuff, but instead they skirt away from the issues, and cut away from the violence (a raised candlestick swinging through the air - closing in on it's victim - then---cut to black! This is fine in a Noirish traditional horror, indeed, it's expected, and is fondly received when it happens - it's a dear convention, especially when accompanied by fake lightning bolts and intense Siouxie eye makeup - but in 'Descendant' it just comes across as clumsy, or as though the editor got queasy at the last minute and cut it out.) This could have either been a very tense psychological thriller - the horror of palingenesis/delusion/madness - or a simple (and fun) slasher movie: it tries to be both, or neither (something new and exciting!), but either way it fails dismally. The only horror element of this entire movie is it's epic dullness.

I think the editor (if there was one at all) must have been drunk when s/he chopped this thing up - there are awkwardly foreshortened scenes; scenes that appeared to be out of order (but that could have just been the poor script). LIkewise the director & cinematographer - there were some very strange shots and framing that I think were meant to be tributes to Hitchcock or Browning, but just ended up looking silly (again, fine in a noir, but this was trying to be something else.)

The whole thing perhaps may have been funny (in that way that previous reviewers have mentioned - "OMG how did this get made?!?") if I had been in the mood for some trash- bagging, unfortunately for me I had settled on the couch, with the lights down low, with the express intention of scaring myself silly - this is a very poor film, and I'm afraid I can't recommend it to people, not even for laughs.

Please, please, don't waste your time or money on this - either borrow a real horror/thriller film, or find yourself a copy of Poe's fantastical tales, either way, you'll have a far more enjoyable and frightening night than you could ever hope to achieve with this rubbish.