Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Probably the best picture Producers Releasing Corp ever made, this little horror piece rivets the attention from first to last. Director Frank Wisbar obviously knows a good story when he writes one and what's more important he knows how to realize its full shock potential on the screen. Not only is the plot involving and the characters fascinatingly drawn, but the setting is absolutely out of this world! Just about all the action takes place either at night or in the middle of a clinging, pervasive fog. This chilling atmosphere is augmented by Wisbar's inventive direction and the wholly convincing performances he has drawn from all his players. The lovely Rosemary La Planche makes an ideal heroine, beautiful, spirited yet vulnerable. Robert Barrat delivers his usual no-nonsense, straight-down-the-line portrait of the local bigwig, though it's hard to believe that the personable, good-looking guy who plays his son is none other than the later dullsville writer/director Blake Edwards.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Since I watched it for the first time, "Piedras" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramon Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director.

Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Pena), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Monica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andres Gertrudix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramon Salazar.

"Piedras" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I saw this film on True Movies (which automatically made me sceptical) but actually - it was good. Why? Not because of the amazing plot twists or breathtaking dialogue (of which there is little) but because actually, despite what people say I thought the film was accurate in it's depiction of teenagers dealing with pregnancy.

It's NOT Dawson's Creek, they're not graceful, cool witty characters who breeze through sexuality with effortless knowledge. They're kids and they act like kids would.

They're blunt, awkward and annoyingly confused about everything. Yes, this could be by accident and they could just be bad actors but I don't think so. Dermot Mulroney gives (when not trying to be cool) a very believable performance and I loved him for it. Patricia Arquette IS whiny and annoying, but she was pregnant and a teenagers? The combination of the two isn't exactly lavender on your pillow. The plot was VERY predictable and but so what? I believed them, his stress and inability to cope - her brave, yet slightly misguided attempts to bring them closer together. I think the characters, acted by anyone else, WOULD indeed have been annoying and unbelievable but they weren't. It reflects the surreality of the situation they're in, that he's sitting in class and she walks on campus with the baby. I felt angry at her for that, I felt angry at him for being such a child and for blaming her. I felt it all.

In the end, I loved it and would recommend it.

Watch out for the scene where Dermot Mulroney runs from the disastrous counselling session - career performance.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.

It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.

None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole".

Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.

Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life!

For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by

1. never providing most of Che's story;

2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition;

3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events;

4. barely developing an idea, or a character;

5. remaining claustrophobically episodic;

6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts;

7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and

8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success!

Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.

The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.

Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.

Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demian Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).

The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.

Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.

Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".

Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.

The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)