input: I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people "finding themselves". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character ("Wendy") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date ("The Trip", "Joy Ride", "Jeepers Creepers") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.

While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.

I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative