Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.

"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.

####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!#####

Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.

Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.

Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.

Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?

Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.

Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.

The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.

But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.

--PolarisDiB