Q: The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliche'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong... OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The 1983 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This "Jane Eyre" even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book).

The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in "Scarlet", and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...)

Some people say that this "Jane Eyre" is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough "kissing scenes". I hate when they make Jane Eyre some "Hollywood movie" with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include "crazy, madly in love" scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as "boring and old-fashioned". But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book.

I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.

It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.

Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in "Halloween" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.

Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming "re-imagining".

It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?

It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.

It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.

9/10 OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This movie was excellent. It details the struggle between a committed detective against the dedicated ignorance of the corrupted communist regime in Russia during the 80's. I give this movie high marks for it's no-holds-barred look into the birth and development of forensic investigation in a globally isolated (thanks to the "Regime") community. This is a graphic movie. It presents an unsensationalized picture of violence and it's tragic remains. Nothing is "candy-coated" with overdone blood or gore to separate us from the cruel reality on the screen. This movie is based on Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. I'm familiar enough with the true story to have a very deep appreciation for how real they kept the film. It's not a comedy, but for those who appreciate dry and dark humor, this movie is a must-see. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive