Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: If Jean Renoir's first film "Whirlpool of Fate" first takes us into the world of the countryside, the rivers, the lives of the peasantry that he will continue to explore, it seems only fitting that his second film deals for the most part with the wealthy and the privileged, the upper classes and those who are trying to claw their way upwards. Put the characters from the first two films together and you have the seeds of his great "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game." This is beautifully filmed, with the restless camera making full use of the amazingly huge apartments and backstage areas that dominate the film's interiors, and the acting though frequently overwrought offers some great moments as well, particularly from Werner Krauss' Muffat. But the glamorous and sultry Ms. Hessling, who at first appears as if she might give Louise Brooks a run for her money in vampishness, never goes beyond a one note, selfish harlot portrayal. Perhaps this is in part a problem with the script, which does seem to mostly go for high points and outraged emotions; not having read the novel I'm not really clear on whether the choices were well-made or not.

Still, the differences between Nana's suitors are well-drawn, and I particularly liked the relationship between Muffat and Jean Angelo's Vandeuvres -- the tragic understandings that each seems to have of his ultimate fate and their sympathy with each other, particularly in the scene at the bottom of the enormous staircase where Vandeuvres warns Muffat, and we wonder if violence will erupt -- this and other gleanings of the ridiculousness of the idle rich help give the film the depth it has.

Far from his greatest achievement, and for me probably just shy overall of "Whirlpool of Fate", this is still well worth seeing for Renoir fans or those interested in silent cinema generally.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.

A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.

I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.

The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.

Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.

Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Yesterday I attended the world premiere of "Descent" at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC. I had a great time. It was sold out and attended by all the major stars including fellow my-spacer Marcus Patrick.

I give the movie 7.5 starts out of a possible 10 stars.

The movie begins with Maya (Rosario Dawson) at college. You can envision the typical college environment with wild parties and flirtations going on. The photography in this film was excellent. She meets Jared (Chad Faust) and they become sweethearts. It appears like any other relationship in the beginning. The man is in quest of the woman's attention and affection and the woman is playing hard to get. Both played this well. Very innocent flirtation between the two. He invites her to his apartment and everything falls apart.

The apartment is very dreary and dark. They eventually end up in the basement which is extremely dark and lit by numerous candles. This actually reminded me of a dungeon. Here is where he shows his true colors and proceeds to rape her. This is a very dark and gritty rape scene. This scene is not for the young or weak at heart. The rape scene is a little long and hard to take, but it is necessary for the rest of the movie that follows.

Maya now starts to lose her soul to drugs and sex. She falls into her own abyss. She starts attending the wildest of parties and wakes up one morning in a room with no recollection on how she got there. She is told to go see Adrian (Marcus Patrick). The first thing I remember about this character is that they say "he is the person who saves anyone who needs saving". He is actually the one who introduces Maya to drugs. They begin a relationship of dependency which comes into play later in the movie. The club scenes at this point of the movie are photographed with extreme expertise. I thought they were well done and I noticed that the director of photography was applauded at the end of the showing during the credits by the audience.

Maya is then back in college as a TA and who is in her class -- Jared her rapist!! You could see the confusion and emotion on Maya's face. What should I do?? What do I do next?? The shots of her face and the emotions are priceless.

What unfolds next is not actually whats happening. She acts interested in Jared. She appears to be looking to revive the relationship and be sweethearts again. I was sitting there saying could this really be happening. It wasn't. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

She invites him to her apartment and of course, he shows up. Now her apartment is dark and gritty. She has him strip down completely. He thinks he's going to get "lucky". She then teases him like any woman can. She's caressing him everywhere and he's getting excited. Note:: for anyone who plans on seeing this movie this scene is full frontal nudity - may not be right for the younger viewer.

She then turns the situation around and she becomes the beast and proceeds to rape him. Once again, the scene is dark, gritty, and very rough.

If you are going to see the movie and don't want to know what happens next, skip this paragraph and go on to the last paragraph.

This is where Adrian reenters the picture. Maya has Adrian save(?) her by performing extremely rough male sex with Jared. She thinks this is the final revenge. Adrian continues to take all of Jared's manhood and strips his dignity to nothing. Marcus, as Adrian, plays this scene as believable as anyone can. He is a strong actor playing a strong character and the strength comes out all over the screen. After the movie, during a Q&A session, Marcus explained that this scene required a lot of trust between him and Chad. Maya believes that this revenge will save her but I don't think it does. One of the final scenes has a closeup of Mays's face and you see a tear roll down her cheek. This was a fabulous closeup scene and evokes constant discussion from anyone who goes to see this movie. Did she get the revenge she wanted?? Was it as satisfying as she expected?? In my opinion, it does not. It only makes matters worse.

This is an excellent movie, will well acted roles, and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking about going to see it. I would just be a little hesitant if under 17 years of age. Rosario, Chad, and Marcus should be commended for jobs well done. The directing and photography must also be commended. It was a night that I enjoyed.