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

Answer: Good work by everyone, from scriptwriters, director, and cast; a lovely fun film that becomes believable for sentimental reasons only; a good film for television on those cloudy, cold wintry days when you just want to sit back and enjoy.

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

Answer: Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick!

The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!

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

Answer: For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now. The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.

I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job). Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.

So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate.

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

Answer:
I read several mixed reviews and several of them downright trashed the movie. I originally became interested in this project because it was being directed by Tony Scott and I have become very interested in his work after Man On Fire had such a profound impact on me. Before I start my review, let me first say this...it's wonderful to see that this movie could have been told in a boring and ordinary manner, yet the writers and Scott chose a different approach.

Plot:

Simply stated, it's not boring. Most Hollywood movies give 'tried and true' plots that they know will connect with people, often ensuring the audiences acceptance of the film and creating a higher probability of profit. This plot was one of the more interesting ones I had seen in a while. Just for reference, I recently watched 'The Weather Man' and 'Lord of War' and while I will say that these movies are excellent, and I enjoyed them both tremendously, both the plots in these movies are boring and they are told exactly how you would expect them to be told. They don't take any chances whatsoever, and they are extremely predictable after you've watched a fair amount of American films. Domino's plot is both interesting and told in a manner that keeps you thinking, "oh man, they're screwed now". And I feel that has been lacking in a lot of recent films. It has a lot of depth to it, in my opinion, and gives you plenty of things to question while watching it. Overall, this is what kept me so interested in the movie.

Characters:

I felt that the characters were accurate. Knightley did a wonderful job of portraying a beautiful woman, who was anything but on the inside and wanted to be viewed as what she was. It was obvious that she wanted to prove herself and she took whatever means she had to accomplish that.

Choco was also very believable, his use of Spanish in inappropriate situations, his reactions to Domino's lack of affection, as well as his jealousy issues within the team...they all rang true to me, which made me feel that his character was that much more realistic.

Rourke's character was the least interesting to me, but it still rang true to me. He seemed like an ordinary guy, trying to make ends meet. I hope that's what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with him because that's what I got out of it. He did a very good job of showing Ed in an Average Joe kind of way that has made his mistakes, yet is still trying to live.

Claremont/Ladies: I believe that they provided much needed 'heart' to the story. They weren't just people who are out getting money to buy a Bentley, these were real people who had a real problem and they sought others mean to accomplish that goal. You could empathize with them because, to them, this child's illness was a problem with no other solution. These characters were supposed to show real people who are less fortunate who got into this mess because they needed help.

The mobsters: They made the story seem sinister in a way that only the mob can. And I really liked that part. They also padded the story with small intricacies that made the plot that much more interesting.

Christopher Walken/90210 guys:

They provided the comic relief in an otherwise very serious movie. From Walken's awkward statements to the ceaseless references to the 90210 guys being has-beens. Their involvement in the movie only made it that much more enjoyable.

Cinematography....yes....the cinematography. This is where this movie seems to have lost a lot of potential fans. But in my opinion I thought it was genius, the use of the camera to translate the mood of the current situation was extremely effective in my opinion. I considered it a method that was properly realized but could always use improvement, just like anything else. I both applaud and congratulate Scott, the editor, the cinematographer and the director of photography on taking some real chances with this movie. Not only did they go far and above with its presentation, they went that much further. The use of colors, both extremely light and extremely dark provided the 'look' of the film with a sinister and grungy look that accurately depicts the life of the mob, bounty hunters and the less fortunate in a manner that show that their life isn't as peachy or 'clean' as everyone else. If you notice, in times of less stress or conflict, there were very few camera tricks if any at all. This shows that Scott and his crew were trying to achieve something with this look and weren't just doing it for the heck of it. I realize that most people who watched this movie weren't expecting it and it cause many of them to be turned off to this film but I think it was great that Scott took this approach. Hollywood films have grown predictable and bland. Most of them are shot in the same manner with the same twists and turns. And I'm glad that Scott tried to make something different.

Granted, this movie isn't for everyone, but to say it's trash and has nothing to offer is completely missing the point. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I'm glad that I spent the money for it. I would recommend this to all, but I'm sure it will only hit a chord with few. I must agree with an earlier poster when he said that many of those who refuse to see outside the 'sphere of MTV' won't appreciate this movie, but I think many people will. We should all try to enjoy it for the fact that Scott and co. took some chances and tried to deliver something that was different and unique. And with that in mind, I think he succeeded tremendously.