Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I know no one cares, but I do. This film is historic for one reason. It is the unity of two heroes from two great seventies sci-fi films. Well, one is great, and one is quite bad. The great one is truly great, in fact it's the best. The bad one is truly bad, in fact it's the worst. Of course of the great I refer to "Star Wars" and it's star Mark Hamill, aka "Luke Skywalker", who is the hero of this film about a kid who gets his Vette swiped and then goes to Vegas (on a lead) and after a whole lot of adventures, eventually recovers it. (Since he's into fixing cars I guess you can call him "Lube Skywalker"). Along the way he meets a hooker with a heart of gold, and ends up facing off with a character played by Kim Milford, the hero from the seventies sci-fi cult film "Laserblast", which is, as I've hinted at earlier, the worst sci-fi film ever made. Milford plays the lead baddie whom Hamill must steal his car back from. I realize that no one cares about this meeting of two great sci-fi heroes, but I do. And I also must say that this is one of the best/worst movies of all time. Mark Hamill's acting needs the force, the plot needs extensive Jedi training, and the character of the hooker played by Annie Potts just might be the most annoying character of all time, ever, in any film I've ever seen. But it's a fun movie to watch on a weekend day, or a weekday night, late at night, very late. It's one of those films that meanders, looking for something but without quite finding it and yet, at the same time, it's entire purpose is, like free-form jazz, to simply exist as is. And it does. And what is, isn't that great, but you can't say it isn't entertaining, because for an hour and a half you might feel ripped off, but you won't feel cheated. So turn off your mind, relax, and enjoy this muddled gem without any expectations, and may the force be with you, always.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
I had read a few positive reviews of this film, and was truly surprised at how dreadful the whole thing was. Positioned as some cross between an AIDS-related story and some kind of "Ghost"/"Blithe Spirit" tale, this film can't always make it's mind up what it wants to be.

Simon and Mark are a gay couple who have an "open" relationship - Simon is able to have anonymous (though safe) sex on the side when he wants. Mark is HIV+ and he and Simon don't seem to have a sex life anymore. When Mark dies, Simon - who has made a habit of shutting off his emotions after being rejected years ago by his father - tries to erase his memory and just get on with being a bachelor. Not that his behavior before Mark's death was much different. But Mark returns in ghostly form and foils his various trysts, while getting Simon to open up and admit his true feelings.

Unfortunately, Simon is such a selfish SOB, it's impossible to feel any empathy toward him for most of the film. By the time he is supposed to be more sympathetic, it's too late to care. Mark, on the other hand, follows in Demi Moore's footsteps from "Ghost," by crying profusely throughout the movie.

There is a bizarre switch in tone after Mark returns. Suddenly we get some lame attempts at humor, a la the TV show "Bewitched." But that doesn't last long. Once Simon's emotional health is at stake, the whole thing becomes increasingly mawkish, with amateurish attempts to jerk at your heartstrings. The finale, with a gold-plated muscle-boy angel guiding a tearful Mark to heaven while a chastened, grief-stricken Simon waves goodbye is just stupefying, chiefly because it isn't intentionally funny.