Q: What Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously "freak show," and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.
A: negative
Q: This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.
A: negative
Q: This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time.
A: positive
Q: This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers. A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days. While the bouyant optimism of the 1960's can't be regained, I think we can at least learn a lesson from the film's breezy energy and charm. I don't know what those who label the film "boring" were watching - there's so much packed into it that it never remains the same film for more that 15 min at a time.
A: positive