Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Sitting, Typing Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.

Man, what a day.

What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!

The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?

Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.

I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.

(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
Note: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.

Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.

Considering the following:

Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?

Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.

It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.

In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?

If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.