input: This movie is a muddled mish-mash of cliches from recent cinema. There are some promising ideas in there, but while the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a confusing mess. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a fair job but with no central theme it seems as though he doesn't have much to work with. Furthermore, the movie is largely devoid of scares (although, in fairness, there are some creepy moments amid the drudgery).

*MILD SPOILERS*

We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The only real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - not very scary.

*END SPOILERS*

Avoid this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale, check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.

Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.

I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.

See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: There are four great movie depicting the Vietnam War. They are (in no particular order: Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, and finally Tigerland. All but Tigerland focus on the actual war and the men in it. Tigerland focuses on men in advanced training for the Vietnam War. The character of Boz is one of the most important depictions of a man questioning war, and the absurdity of it. This has been done in many war movies, but rarely in boot camp. Also, this is a very complex character, whose method with dealing with his feeling and emotions are the driving force of this movie. The character of Boz makes this movie so good. It is a shame it did not get a major release. It belongs on the shelf of any movie fan alongside the aforementioned movie titles.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: First let me say the director has some wonderful use of titles in his establishing shots. I really enjoyed them. I really enjoyed this movie but I got to say next to Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinear is pretty lackluster. Brosnan melts into this character so well, that it is really hard to remember that this is the same guy that played bond. It also shows his range and depth as an actor. It is kinda of an indie flick and was really nice to see especially with all of the mainstream movies that flood the movies at this time of the year. I found the characters to be well crafted. The twist in the middle I felt was especially good. I also liked how the characters come off realistically. So many times we have in film these caricatures of people that are not really characters but walking-stereotypes... I like the different approaches this movie takes. I think of sideways when I think of this movie but I think this is more watchable and a better movie overall...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive