Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I think a lot of people just wrote this off as another one of Tom Cruise's weird movies (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut) but Vanilla Sky is definitely its own movie. Many people said it was weird; it wasn't. It was different and confusing but not weird. Weird is Stanley Kubrick or Pauly Shore. Different is The Truman Show. Confusing is The Matrix or The Game. And unlike Kubrick, this movie has a conclusion. Everything makes sense -- maybe not immediately, maybe not even today, but it will make sense. Vanilla Sky is confusing because David Aames (Tom Cruise) is confused. THAT'S the point. That's where the so-called "weirdness" that turned critics away came in. If they had bothered to "open [their] eyes" as the original 1997 Spanish movie, they would have seen that. And if that's not enough reason to see it, go see it for the music. Cameron Crowe offers a wonderful soundtrack; he uses it to set the "feel" -- that notorious element that many movies lack. With songs like The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" playing at the dramatic and emotional climax of the movie, he creates an offbeat, yet astoundingly "right" feel. A wonderful film, in its script, music, acting, and images, Vanilla Sky is sadly, a superficial bandwagon movie that critics chide in order to appear intelligent. Excellent: A+

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I remember watching "Gung Ho" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.

Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.

I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have "the best of both worlds." And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.

The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.