Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.

This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.

Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.

For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.

Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the "family" atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.

Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.

Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliche of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.

However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.

PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm).
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
*Possible Spoilers* Although done before (and better) in 'Midnight Express' and 'Return To Paradise', Brokedown Palace still strikes a chord with me.

Here we have the tale of two young girls who travel through Thailand, and get arrested on charges of trafficking drugs. Was it Clare Danes' Alice? Was it Kate Beckinsale's Darlene? Was it the handsome stranger whom they met on their journey? None of that really matters, for this is a tale of friendship and trust and the limits they can be stretched to. Throw in Bill Pullman as an unenthusiastic lawyer and Jacqueline Kim as his Thai bride (and better lawyer than he is) and we have a nice little story that holds the audience's attention.

Brokedown Palace is nothing extraordinary, or notorious for any reason - it is not an original concept, it doesn't show sensationalised violence that leads to the wannabe-avant-garde crowd talking about it's "gritty realism" or "hard hitting truths" - it is merely a good story with some fine performances. Bill Pullman is weakest with his lazy drawl and gravelly way of talking - I was quite bored with the character.

Kate Beckinsale, while decent, is nothing spectacular. She acts well, but it's not exactly a memorable performance.

Jacqueline Kim however, is in fine form, crafting a likable and defined character where, really, there is not much to work with.

But make no mistake - this is Clare Danes' movie. I've long been a fan of her work, and this is no change. She captivates in every scene she appears, and were it not for her, the film would probably stoop into boring fare. I particularly applaud her performance in the scene between her and Darlene's father.

The film also has a brilliant soundtrack.

7 out of 10