Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I watched SHORE LEAVE the other day. I've seen it so many times, and I never get tired of it. Strangely enough, every time I watch it lately, it takes me right back to the very first time I saw it. Including this time. Must be that sense of mystery and "What IS going on here?" about it.

Oddly enough, the one part of the story that ALWAYS felt awkward and uncomfortable for me, this time, actually had a HUGE effect on me-- Ruth. I think a lot of it was Gerald Fried's score. A real masterpiece, that! The romantic section was reused-- much more extensively-- in THIS SIDE OF PARADISE. But of course, it debuted here. I get the impression that, out of all the girls Kirk knew over the years, she may have been the "sweetest". When she said, "Do you have to go?", combined with the music, I could really feel the pain she must have felt at not being able to have him stay with her.

Someone commented online that Ruth looked older than he was, yet she wasn't supposed to have aged at all in 15 years. Which makes me think... MAYBE she was one of the teachers at the academy. Kirk had an affair with an older woman! (Perhaps he thought back to this in "MIRI" when he told Janice, "I never get involved with older women." Maybe he meant, "...anymore."

Reading ST reviews the other day, I see where someone compared WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF? with I, MUDD. But it seems SHORE LEAVE oughta be in there, too. What are all those "people" if not androids? And could "The Caretaker" be related to "The Old Ones" from the earlier episode? Whoever he is, he seems to be one of the RARE cases in ST where you have a race that is actually "superior" as opposed to merely thinking they are.

Yeoman Barrows seems to be filling in for Yeoman Rand. Considering how much attention Dr. McCoy showered on her, it's just one more frustrating example of a potentially good character who appears once and then never shows up again! Sheesh.

One thing missing from the last several I've watched that snuck back in here was, Spock smiling. He was! I saw him. I really prefer knowing there's 2 sides to him going on inside all the time, rather than this "submerged" business. When he said, "Enjoy yourself, sir." near the beginning, you could see it wasn't just his addressing his superior officer, but talking to his friend. And at the end, when he needlessly says, "Totally illogical!", I can't help but think he does it purely to provoke a reaction. He may not be smiling or laughing, but I think he likes seeing his fellow crew members around him happy.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I had never seen such an incredible acting job in a motion picture as I did when I saw Daniel Day-Lewis play Christy Brown in My Left Foot. In fact off the scene his role wasn't even over. He played the role of Christy Brown or at least disabled like him all through the filming of the movie and needed surgery because of the damage his superior acting had done to his back. To me that is remarkable and through all the pain he put up with to act that role I believe it is quite true to say he put on the most Oscar worthy performance in history. He was so masterful in this tough a part that I believe no one could have done it better or with more of an impact than him. Although I cannot say it is the greatest movie of all time I can say that how he played this impossible a role and then kept on acting it until it wasn't even acting anymore is without a doubt the greatest feet I will ever seen an actor do. Probably a man too for that matter.