Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Ronald Colman plays a famous Broadway actor who has begun to lose his mind and sense of identity. After years of playing a wide range of parts, he can't remember who he exactly is--who are his roles and who is the self. And, much more serious, he begins to see and hear his play even in regular everyday life. So, since he's currently playing in "Othello", he begins to act jealous and suspicious--just like the title character. Ultimately, it leads him to the depths of insanity and murder.

I saw this film years ago and liked it. I just saw it again and loved it. Now perhaps some of my enthusiasm is because I have always liked Ronald Colman and this is a great triumph for him--and for which he earned the Best Actor Oscar. And, looking at the competition that year (Gregory Peck for GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, John Garfield for BODY AND SOUL, William Powell for LIFE WITH FATHER and Michael Redgrave for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA), I think Colman was a very good choice, as he stretched from his usual comfort zone and did a much more demanding role.

Now I noticed that one reviewer hated this film because they hated Shakespeare--and this took up about half their review talking about their dislike for him. However, this film isn't really about Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter at all if you dislike Shakespeare. I am no huge fan of Shakespeare, but marveled at the small portions of the play that Colman re-enacted--though, as I said, this is NOT a really movie about Shakespeare. Instead, it's a wonderful portrait of an actor losing his mind and mixing his stage role with reality. It could have been ANY play, though "Othello" was an excellent choice because of the murder scene--which gets acted out for real later in the film.

Overall, a very clever film due to a lovely script--with some overtones of Film Noir. Fortunately, the acting was terrific also, as Colman had excellent support from Signe Hasso, Shelly Winters and Edmond O'Brien (who was particularly good--he played his part just right). And, considering the great George Cukor was directing, it's no wonder it's a wonderful film from start to finish.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.

The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.

Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.

In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.

Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.

There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.

Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.

Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.

Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.

It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.

I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.

I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.