Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I admit to being somewhat jaded about the movie genre of a young child softening the heart of his/her reluctant guardian. I've seen enough of them Baby Boom, Kolya, About a Boy, Mostly Martha, and to some extent, Whale Rider to expect to be bored by the formula. What held my attention in The King of Masks was the grimness of the setting: small-town China in the 1930's. Extreme poverty was the norm, and girl children were considered so worthless to poor parents that they killed them at birth or gave them to whomever would take them on the black market. When Wang discovers his purchased grandson, whom he's nicknamed "Doggie," is a granddaughter, he initially casts her out, even though she's showed great promise as street-performing heir. Even after he reluctantly takes her back, he's not too upset when she's kidnapped. The film is gritty then, showing the lengths to which a young, street-smart girl had to go to survive in that society.

The two lead performances are believable and beguiling in their societal context. In a Western society, one would expect at least a hint of resentment from Wang at not having achieved more material success. Wang so thoroughly accepts his station as a celebrated artist with low societal status, though, that I did, too. While Doggie exhibits a level of precociousness and cunning that would be suspect in a modern, suburban child, it's completely believable in the context of a kid constantly in survival mode in a society that treats poor girls like garbage. And after learning that her previous seven owners have physically and mentally abused her, her fierce attachment to Wang makes perfect sense.

The peek at small-town life in a foreign country, the naturalness of the two lead actors, the surprising plot twists, and of course, the heartwarming resolution all contribute to a very watchable film.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This film fails to capture any of the mystery and intrigue that the book offers. The main point of the book, the insights, are hardly even touched upon, leaving the viewer wondering exactly why everyone is making such a big deal about them and why they are willing to risk their lives.

The character development is not good at all. No background or personal development leaves the audience not really caring at all about what happens to them, and so the action sequences fall flat.

The search for the manuscripts ends abruptly, and with no real explanation, not leaving any sense of satisfaction as to what the whole search was for.

This is one of the worst adaptations of a book I have ever seen. It is horrible and a waste of time. If you have not read the book, skip the movie and read it. If you have read the book, skip the movie and reread it.

It is almost as if the point of making the movie was to discredit the book, that is how poorly done and ridiculous this movie is. It is a shame too, because it could have been good had they capitalized on it at the height of its success and they probably would have been able to get a good screenwriter and some good actors.

Please don't waste your time, READ THE BOOK!!!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.

And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.

It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.

Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.

There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.

Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.

Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen.