Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliche on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away.

We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again.

On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.

Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time?

Closets, that's what.

Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!"

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Strangely enough this movie never made it to the big screen in Denmark, so I had to wait for the video release. My expectations where high but they where in no way disappointed. As always with Ang Lee there is fantastic acting, an intelligent and thrilling plot that has you guessing right till the end and superb filming. Along with Unforgiven this is easily one of the two best westerns of the 90's.

People who expect something along the line of Mel Gibson in The Patriot(corny) or Braveheart(acceptable) will be sourly disappointed, all others who appreciate the above mentioned qualities will have a fantastic time watching it. 9 out of 10.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended.