Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film.

Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons.

DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways).

I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: What happened in the making of this movie so that it ended up as the total mess it is? Just one year after "The Breakfast Club", a brilliant movie with many of the same actors as in "St. Elmo's Fire" (who by the way looked and acted in the latter more like they were still the high school misfits from the former but without the grip or discipline in portraying their roles.

Was it the directing or the writing. Since it was the same person (Joel Schumacher) it must be both. But then Schumacher has since given us "The Phantom of the Opera", "Phone Booth", "A Time to Kill", and two Batman movies, "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" which range from good to great directing. Something went wrong on "StEF" because it has no genius whatsoever, no comedy worth anything, and is very far off the mark on what is truly valuable in life.

Example: The character Wendy (a rich little girl with a heart to do good and help the less fortunate played by Mare Winningham ) reveals to Billy (an unruly slob who cheats on his wife and on his girlfriends, drinks far too much and has no sense of order in his life appropriately played by Rob Lowe) that she is still a virgin. Billy truly see a challenge and possible conquest but Wendy "is not ready". Wendy, in fact is so not ready it is hard to believe she is in this clique of friends. Later in the story, when Billy whose wife has left him taken his child and married another has somehow drawn some of the strings of his life together. Billy is leaving for New York, deserting and abandoning all parental responsibility for his baby daughter, he convinces Wendy that her virginity would be the perfect "going away gift" from her to him. And Wendy, who works as a social worker helping broken families, seems not to be phased at all by this despot. Give me a break. The one thing she can only give once, she gives to a loser who is leaving his family and friends? Schumacher frames this scene as a wonderful and touching moment.

Many more example exist where there is a complete disconnect between what is real and of value being tossed overboard and the acts are made to look like virtue.

I suppose some may say that "that was the 80's" but I remember it was in the "80's" that men began to be held responsible for the children they fathered whether in a marriage or out.

I think this movie is so bad because it is so out of sync with what it really valuable and right.

As for the technique (not the story), it was terrible as well. It is disjointed and feels like a 3 hour movie that has been edited to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transitions and jumps in time simply do not make sense. Pick up what is on the editing room floor, put it back in and the movie would probably flow much better...but it still is a horrible movie.

Maybe Schumacher has become a better and stronger director since 1986 (he must have) or maybe he was over his head when it came to writing the screenplay for St Elmo's Fire or maybe this group of actors took over the set and went their own way - that is what I really think happened.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I went to see this movie expecting a nice relaxing time in the theater with my younger sister. Instead, I had to really control myself in order to convince her that I was not scared. In many ways still a children's story, but with a screenplay that has a lot of potential. Could have been one of the scariest movies if planned for another audience.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.

A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.

While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.

A creepy film; worth seeing!