Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This movie should be shown to film school students as an example of what NOT to do. The original kicked some major tire squealing butt, this horrible disaster breaks the cardinal rule of Bruckheimer films, which is: we all know they suck, but they have great action. This film has NO ACTION. This film is BORING. Where are the cars? Where are the chases? Where's the tension? Where's the suspense? Where's the rush? Where!!?? This isn't really a movie at all, it's a bad commercial. 50 cars in 24 hours? That is wrong. They have 3 days to steal them, the ad is wrong. How bad is that? The leads acting is stiff, wooden and forced. The villain, the cop, the others...who cares. They utter their pointless lines, they serve the illogical plot. They slog through it the best they can as the music video director says "don't worry we'll make a lot of fast cuts and no one will notice how bad the film is" or "we'll fix it with lots of loud music" The "script" isn't really a script at all, it's more like a list of cliches with an ending that is a total ripoff of: -------Warning - possible spoiler------ 5------4-----3-----2-----1------ The Fugitive. The biggest crime of all is the underuse of Vinnie Jones, man....this is the baddest, coolest mofo since Jules in Pulp Fiction. And what do they do!? They make him a mute who's hardly in the film! Make Vinnie the main villain and he could have saved the film. How could they have been so dumb? How? How? Why? The original film is very entertaining with a cool trick at the end that gets the driver away. The original has a great 40 minute chase that delivers! Go find the original. Or if you're craving some real car chase action go rent RONIN. The chases in Ronin raised the bar by which all other car chases will now be judged. Bruckheimer and Cage had all that money, all those resources, all that experience, and they can't even come close to matching a film made 25 years ago for $250,000? How can that be? You feel like you got ripped off after seeing this movie. Where I was once excited to see Coyote Ugly, Remember the Titans and Pearl Harbor, now I say: God help us all.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Until now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.

Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.

It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline SecretsDirector's Cut or originalis bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Similar to "On the Town," this musical about sailors on shore leave falls short of the later classic in terms of pacing and the quality of the songs, but it has its own charms. Kelly has three fabulous dance routines: one with Jerry the cartoon mouse of "Tom and Jerry" fame, one with a little girl, and a fantasy sequence where he is a Spanish lover determined to reach his lady on a high balcony. Sinatra, playing Kelly's shy, inexperienced buddy, and Grayson, the woman who serves as the love interest for both men, do most of the singing. Iturbi provides some fine piano playing. At nearly two and half hours, it is a bit too long for a light musical but it doesn't drag.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
I hate reading reviews that say something like, 'Don't waste your time, this film stinks on ice.' It does to that reviewer yet for me, it may have some sort of naive charm. If you like the other 'Whistler' series films, this one will be watchable. If you like 40s noirish films, this one will be watchable.

This film is not as good, in my opinion, as any of the earlier series entries which starred Richard Dix as the protagonist. It's much slower, and the plot is trite. You've seen this same narrative device used in many other films, and usually better.

But the acting is good, and so is the lighting, and the dialog. It's just lacking in energy and you'll likely figure out exactly what's going on and how it's all going to come out in the end not more than a quarter of the way through.

The 'Whistler' series is semi-noir, and there character, mood, lighting, camera movement and angles are more important than the story itself. But this film is not noir. It's too light weight and Hollywood innocent for that. Neither Richard Dix's character nor those of any of his ladies in the previous films had to come to a good end. You just never knew until the end.

But still, I'll recommend this one for at least a single viewing. I've watched it at least twice myself, and got a reasonable amount of enjoyment out of it both times.