Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: "So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiance falls in love with a beautiful psychic and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriendhe heit'll be hilarious!." Polite chuckling.

This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up "Over Her Dead Body," presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.

For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, "Over Her Dead Body" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles?

I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as 'event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's '8 ' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality ('man', 'catholic', 'window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been 'framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?

So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of "family" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".