Q: Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.

One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.
A: negative
Q: An imagination is a terrible thing to waste ... especially when you have talented actors. Writer/Director Jones wastes no time in siding the viewer with his protagonist.

Anyone who has shared an apartment with a slob will be crying with laughter. Anyone who has arrived while a meter maid places a ticket on your windshield will just plain cry. We've all wanted to rip a terrible toupee off a man's head. These are only snippets of what's in store when watching "Cross Eyed", a heartfelt film that should be a stepping stone for Jones and his wry sense of humor both in front and behind the camera.
A: positive
Q: This is the second British Rank film to adapt the stories of Sommerset Maugham to film. All but one story from 'Quartet' does not travel well into the contempory era; and the actors speech is decidedly "clipped", as only British pre-1950's actors delivery can be. In anycase 'Trio' seems tighter and more filmic than the first film adaptation.

One of the problems these two films can't overcome is that their source material was written 25-30 years prior to the films. Consequently, by the 1950's Maughm's (pre-war) popularist "small morality" storyteling seemed rather quaint, if not downright coy.
A: negative
Q: Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from.
A: positive