Problem: This review is like what?

Review:There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?

The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."

While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".

The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)

The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.

As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).

As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint?

Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture.

Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.

And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.

I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.

This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.

The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).

The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.

It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.

If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society).
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I first saw BLOOD OF THE SAMURAI at its premiere during the Hawaii International Film Festival. WOW! Blood just blew us away with its sheer verve, gore, vitality, gore, excitement, gore, utter campiness, and even more gore, and all in SUCH GREAT FUN! Especially for those of you who enjoy all those Japanese chambara samurai and ninja films, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO SEE BLOOD!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!!
+++++++++
A:
positive