Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Why didn't Dynamo have any pants?! Where did they go?? It was never explained. That's why this movie was so awesome. Plus Starsky gave his kids the AIDS!!!! Great acting too. Richard Dawson deserved to win Best Supporting Actor! A I D S My favorite line from the movie was "That hit the spot" A I D S. This movie was for the "birds". I tried to give this movie the "stinkeye" but it continued playing. What am I doing wrong???!!!! I thought the "HATEBOAT" was funnnny lol ;) I would like that for a show. Why wasn't Dynamo wearing pants. I know his arm WAS skewered but... What's up with those crazy futur nets. Why didn't that family feud guy Ray Combs get a net?? He could have used one. AIDSSSSS
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a cafe in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.

"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?

Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.

Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
In the same tune as his Americana Drums Along the Mohawk, John Ford captures American history in a way that is fictional yet very believable. Henry Fonda made three consecutive films in this era with Ford and all three are about a certain time and place with emphasis on the setting and the cultural surroundings. In Mohawk, pioneer America is in full bloom with Americans fending for themselves against Indians and other forces. Here, Ford shows us 19th century America; a time when invention and creativity were beginning to blossom and this nation truly was becoming great. Amongst it all was a tall, lanky, young lawyer from Illinois named Abe Lincoln and this film fictionalizes his life as a lawyer, foreshadowing the greatness he would later accomplish.

Fonda is superb in this movie, capturing the essence of what is considered to be the persona of Lincoln, although no one knows exactly what he was like then. The sets and supporting cast also work well together and give a unique balance in Ford's picturesque of the American dream and its many forms. This is not a film to be taken literally but rather symbolically, showing that Lincoln was indeed warming up for the events in his life that were to creates his legacy. We even get some scenes between him and a young Mary Todd; and it is hard to see how they did end up together but that is not the point. I believe this is simply a tribute to the greatness of Lincoln, widely regarded as the greatest American president. His quiet and straightforward demeanor was rare then and would be today. Indeed, our government surely needs more men like him.