Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I saW this film while at Birmingham Southern College in 1975, when it was shown in combination with the Red Balloon. Both films are similar in their dream-like quality. The bulk of the film entails a fish swimming happily in his bowl while his new owner, a little boy, is away at school. A cat enters the room where the fish and his bowl are, and begins to warily stalk his "prey." The boy begins his walk home from school, and the viewer wonders whether he will arrive in time to save his fish friend. The fish becomes agitated by the cat's presence, and finally jumps out of the bowl! The cat quickly walks over to the fish, gently picks him up with his paws, and returns him to his bowl. The boy returns happily to his fish, none the wiser.

The ending is amazing in both its irony and its technical complexity. It is hard to imagine how the director could've pulled the technical feat back in 1959 -- it seems more a trick for 2003.

If you can find it, watch it -- you won't be disappointed! And if you *do* find it, let me know so I can get a copy, too!

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: It's been nearly 30 years, and I STILL hate everyone involved in this movie. It remains the worst movie I've ever seen.

Before seeing this, I never much minded Rivers, one way or the other. After seeing this movie, I have an allergic reaction when I accidentally see her on television.

I got dragged to this - against my better judgment - by peer pressure. However, coming out of the theater, those friends swore an oath to never again overrule my choice of movie. Nearly thirty years later, we still carry around mental scars from this movie.

On my deathbed, one of my regrets will be the time I wasted hoping that this movie might get better. It never did.

If you are ever given a choice, you would prefer putting your own eyes out to sitting though this movie.

I registered for IMDb comments just in the hope that perhaps I can warn others against viewing this movie. If I can save just one person from watching this, then my existence on this earth will have been justified.

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.

Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."

The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice.

The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...

It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.

And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.