Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: The year 1995, when so many people talked about the great premiere of BRAVEHEART by Mel Gibson, also saw another very fine, yet underrated movie on Scottish history, ROB ROY. Although it is a very different film, especially due to the historical period the story is set in, ROB ROY has much in common not only with marvelous BRAVEHEART but also with the very spirit of epic movies.

It is a film that discusses similar themes, like fight for dignity, courage, honor, revenge, family being a key to happiness. It also leads us to the very bliss of Scottish highlands where the human soul finds its rest being surrounded by all grandeur of nature. Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson), the main character is a true hero (so universal in epics), sort of "Scottish Robin Hood" who struggles to lead his people out of oppression imposed by cold hearted lords. Although he worsens his situation through the acts, has to suffer a lot, two things stay in his mind undeniably: HONOR that he is given by himself and LOVE to his woman, Mary MacGregor (Jessica Lange). That leads him to unexpected events...

Except for the interesting content and quite vivid action, the movie is filled with truly stunning visuals. This factor has to do both with the sets and locations of the film as well as the wardrobe. Many memorable moments stay in the mind of any viewer who can allow themselves an insight into artistic images. For me, the most splendid scene was in the Highlands when Rob Roy tells his boys what honor really means. Then, he sends them away and beautifully makes love to his woman. The scene he escapes Marguis of Montrose (John Hurt) to the waterfall is also worth a look as a stunning visual.

Of course, there is some graphic violence, like in the duel for instance, but I don't think that this violence would be as harmful as in many other modern films. Its justification is like any other epic's: bloodshed and cruelty of those times were really serious and there would be no point in hiding it. The most disturbing scene, for me, was the rape done on Rob Roy's wife by the villain of the story: Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth). It's truly disgusting and kids should definitely stay away. However, all the rest is O.K. Yet, there is one aspect that made me really love this movie, the performances.

All the cast do perfect jobs, from the leading Lian Neeson who fits very well to the role of tall, brave, strong Scottish man to the supporting cast of Brian Cox who portrays wicked Killearn, a silent witness of terrible acts who feels comfortable with the evil of war. Jessica Lange is very fine as Mary MacGregor and has some of the most beautiful moments in the film. There is chemistry between Ms Lange and Mr Neeson in many of their scenes. John Hurt, one of the best British actors, does a terrific job as Marguis of Montrose, a corrupted man for whom money is the aim in itself achieved by any means. I like that calmness of his portrayal. But the real villain is played by Tim Roth who truly depicts wretched side of his character, Archibald - a man who mocks love, who loves war and who finds true lust in rape and slaughter. But, like in any good epic, this exceptional evil must find its end...

And one more aspect: the musical score: such memorable and sentimental tunes that are bound to sound in the ears for long. The final moment touched me to tears not only because of the beauty it conveys but because I deeply combined these blissful tunes with the grandeur of locations. Scotland remains in the heart of its visitor and this movie reminded me of that permanent effect. It was, as if, my second journey to Scotland.

ROB ROY is a very nice movie, very well directed, photographed and acted. It perhaps does not equal BRAVEHEART with its spectacular sets and crowds of extras in battle scenes, but it is a fairly long film with much attention placed on one very significant feature a cinema should have: stunning entertainment combined with heartfelt education. I really enjoyed that film, do not hesitate to call it metaphorically "highlands of entertainment" and rate it 9/10

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

***

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.

The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.

This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.