input: I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It does not seem that this movie managed to please a lot of people. First off, not many seem to have seen it in the first place (I just bumped into it by accident), and then judging by the reviews and the rating, of those that did many did not enjoy it very much.

Well, I did. I usually tolerate Gere for his looks and his charm, and even though I did not consider him a great actor, I know he can do crazy pretty well (I liked his Mr Jones). But this performance is all different. He is not pretty in this one, and he is not charming. His character is completely different from anything I had seen from him up to that point---old, ugly, broken, determined. And Gere, in what to me is so far his best performance ever, pulls it off beautifully. I guess it is a sign of how well an actor does his job if you cannot imagine anyone else doing it instead---think Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, or Washington as Alonzo in Training Day. That is how good Gere was here.

The rest of the cast were fine by me, too. I guess I would not have cast Danes in this role, mostly because I think she is too good-looking for it. But she actually does an excellent job, holding her own with a Gere in top form, which is no small feat. Strickland easily delivers the best supporting act, in a part that requires a considerable range from her. I actually think she owns the key scene with Gere and Danes, and that is quite an achievement.

So what about the rest of the movie, apart from some excellent acting? The story is perhaps not hugely surprising, some 8mm-ish aspects to it, but adding the "veteran breaks in rookie" storyline to the who-dunnit, and also (like Silence of the Lambs) adding a sense of urgency through trying to save the girl and the impending retirement of Gere's character. All that is a backdrop to the development of the two main characters, as they help each other settle into their respective new stations in life. That's a lot to accomplish in a 100 minutes, but it is done well, and we end up caring for the characters and what happens to them.

Direction and photography were adequate. I could have done without the modern music-video camera movements and cutting, but then I am an old curmudgeon, and it really wasn't all that bad, in fact I think it did help with the atmosphere of the movie, which as you might have guessed, by and large isn't a happy one.

Worth seeing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive