Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Despite some negative comments this film has garnered in the IMDb pages, it's still worth a look as this is a story about survival and camaraderie between two different men with different mentalities while in a difficult mission in the Panamanian jungle.

Peruvian director Luis Llosa takes us along to watch this thriller set in Panama. The film has some good moments as Beckett, the veteran marine, takes a newly arrived man, recently sent to try to eliminate a notorious drug cartel head and the corrupt army general who might be the next president of the country. The only problem, Miller, has no experience in what he has been entrusted to achieve.

Miller, the arrogant newly arrived man to the jungle and to the guerrilla warfare between the military and drug lords against the infiltrated American intelligence men, learns a valuable lesson from Beckett. What looks good in theory, is irrelevant in the jungle.

Tom Berenger, is an actor who doesn't register much, as he proves in this movie, but in the context of the movie, he is right as a man of a few words. Billy Zane playing Miller does what he can with a role that doesn't afford him any glory until the crucial end.

For lovers of action film, "Sniper" offers an 112 minutes of action that with a bit of trimming would have made a more satisfying movie.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Coming from the same director who'd done "Candyman" and "Immortal Beloved", I'm not surprised it's a good film. Ironically, "Papierhaus" is a movie I'd never heard of until now, yet it must be one of the best movies of the late 80s - partly because that is hands down the worst movie period in recent decades. (Not talking about Iranian or Swedish "cinema" here...) The acting is not brilliant, but merely solid - unlike what some people here claim (they must have dreamt this "wondrous acting", much like Anna). The story is an interesting fantasy that doesn't end in a clever way that ties all the loose ends together neatly. These unanswered questions are probably left there on purpose, leaving it up to the individual's interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that with a theme such as this. "Pepperhaus" is a somewhat unusual mix of kids' film and horror, with effective use of sounds and music. I like the fact that the central character is not your typical movie-cliche ultra-shy-but-secretly-brilliant social-outcast girl, but a regular, normal kid; very refreshing. I am sick and tired of writers projecting their own misfit-like childhoods into their books and onto the screens, as if anyone cares anymore to watch or read about yet another miserly, lonely childhood, as if that's all there is or as if that kind of character background holds a monopoly on good potential. The scene with Anna and the boy "snogging" (for quite a stretch) was a bit much - evoking feelings of both vague disgust and amusement - considering that she was supposed to be only 11, but predictably it turned out that Burke was 13 or 14 when this was filmed. I have no idea why they didn't upgrade the character's age or get a younger actress. It was quite obvious that Burke isn't that young. Why directors always cast kids older than what they play, hence dilute the realism, I'll never know.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
I love Jane Austen's stories. I've only read two of them (P&P and S&S), but after having seen this adaption, I'm reaching for "Persuasion" from my bookcase just to make sense out of the story, and also, because I refusing to believe Jane Austen could have written such nonsense. For me, I thought that if you base a film on a Jane Austen novel, you can't really go wrong. It will turn out great pretty much by default. I was wrong.

First of all, where are the characters that you sympathise with and like? You have to have at least one likable character to get the audience to invest their emotions in them, and this did not deliver. Sure, I wanted Anne and Wentworth to get together, but only because that's what you know the purpose of the story is, them getting together. Instead, I had to resist urges to throw my teacup at the TV and to continue watching it to the end.

Anne was utterly annoying throughout, and in the end, I really have no idea why Wentworth was so smitten by her, as there seemed to be nothing there for him to be attracted to. She was meek, bland, dull, socially inadequate and came across like a sheep following everyone else's instructions rather than having a mind of her own. This can still work for a lead character, if you do it well. This wasn't done well.

The other characters were just displaying various degrees of narcissism, of which Mary was the worst, with a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder. Where Mrs. Bennet in P&P had similar flaws, she was still endearing, whereas Mary was more of a freak-show. More loathsome than funny.

Wentworth was very handsome and seemed like a decent kind of guy. For the most part of the story, I was just wondering what kind of person he was and why he's in love with Anne, as surely, he's the kind of guy who would want a person who is a little bit more... alive? Acting-wise, not too much to say, as I reacted more to the characters being portrayed rather than how good/bad the people acting were. Anthony Head was excellent, but as soon as I saw he was in it, I expected no less.

Also found the story very confusing. It wasn't until the end of the movie where it seemed as if Elizabeth was not Anne's stepmother, but in fact a sister (I'm still not 100% on that). The whole Anne/Wentworth back story was also a bit fuzzy. They had been together but then broke up and they're both bitter about it? How come? I was wondering this for quite some time, and the explanation seemed to be she dumped him because she was persuaded to do so by someone? But it was said in a kind of "by the by" way that it was almost missed, as if it was somehow unimportant. How can it be unimportant when it's the very core of the story?? There was also a lot of name-dropping, but no real feel for who the characters were. This Louisa person for instance, who was she? A friend? Family? What? It wasn't made very clear who the different characters are and their relationship with one another. Lady Russell was there a lot, but why? Mrs. Croft and Wentworth were brother and sister, which felt very unrealistic as Mrs. Croft looked old enough to be his mother.

The final kiss, yes it was a bit strange them kissing in the street, but I didn't really think about it, because I was too busy yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!" at the TV, because Anne's lips trembled and trembled and trembled for what felt like ages before they actually met Wentworth's. Have SOME hesitation there, but only for a couple of seconds or so, not half a minute.

Then there's the issue of camera work. As a regular movie watcher, you don't pay attention to angles and such unless you decide to look out for it. I didn't decide to do so here, but I still noticed them. To me, that means the filmmakers are not doing a good job. A lot of conversations were with extreme facial closeups, something that should only be used when there's a really important point to be made. In this adaption, it was over-used and therefore lacked meaning. The hand-held feeling on occasion also didn't really work in a period drama. The camera work in the running scene in the end also felt too contemporary. (Not to mention the running itself.) This was the only Austen adaption I caught in ITV's Austen season. Makes me wonder if it's worth watching "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" or if I should just read the books and leave it at that. I'm sad to say, this is a Jane Austen adaption I did not enjoy. Maybe I'll watch the 1995 version instead. The BBC are renowned for having done beautiful Austen adaptations before, after all.