Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The Soloist has all ingredients to impress the Academy. Its director, Joe Wright, has already authored a best picture candidate. The leading actor, Robert Downey Jr., starred in a widely praised superhero film. Finally, the movie itself is a drama. When it was mysteriously pulled from release in late 2008, filmgoers and critics were baffled. Now that I've seen it, I assure you Universal didn't just delay this film to promote Iron Man-Oscar buzz. The Soloist is a weak drama with no external conflict that is vastly inferior to any 2009 best picture candidates.

Downey and co-star Jamie Fox aren't to be blamed for this mishap. Joe Wright is largely at fault but even he can't save a Lifetime story. Many movies are too complex and alienate viewers. This one is unusually simple. It's a movie about a newspaper reporter, Steve Lopez (Downey), who befriends a homeless musician, Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Fox). That's it. Ayers is schizophrenic and doesn't resonate with Lopez's traditional approach to friendship. The two become friends. They begin this movie as acquaintances and are BFFs by its end. Tension consists of moments like this: will Ayers let Lopez take him to the homeless shelter? This material would have been better suited as a made-for-TV production rather than a feature film.

Wright includes many scenes of cheap humor to obscure the lack of content. Lopez battles yard-defiling raccoons in what I consider a sub-plot. Do you remember when this happened in Atonement or Pride and Prejudice? Those films were structured enough to permit an occasional joke but nothing so prolonged. Ayers' back story is fleshed out when it doesn't need to be. Worst of all, these scenes are not connected and appear at random intervals. It's a way of admitting that the main story carries little appeal. Nathaniel was a violin prodigy with a tough upbringing (I was too). This is a fabricated attempt to create sympathy with Ayers when most of us already have it. He's a homeless schizophrenic for crying out loud! The movie somewhat conveys humanity's love for music, like Amadeus and Beethoven Lives Upstairs. It isn't as effective as either of those pictures, however. The entire film is hinged on Ayers' schizophrenia. It ultimately is how he interacts with everyone else. His being a musician is a nice touch but hardly worth including. The film doesn't incorporate this characteristic fully into his persona. Take music out of Amadeus or Beethoven Lives Upstairs, and no film remains. The Soloist is more about friendship in general than music. Nathaniel could be a writer or film critic and few lines of dialog would need to be seriously altered.

This is only Joe Wright's third film, and his first that isn't a romance staring Keira Knightley. Let's hope this film isn't an indication of how limited his abilities are. There are stylistic nods to his earlier works but The Soloist is much weaker than either of them. In his defense, Universal should not have agreed to widely release this picture. This film seems tailored for Imagine Entertainment (distributors of Changeling). I wouldn't be so disappointed with it if had a limited release. Its poor box office performance may inhibit better dramas from being distributed nationally.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return.

This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.

I was not disappointed in the least.

Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh.

Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Gwoemul (The Host) - Due to pollution in the Han river a mutated beast goes on the rampage. The youngest member of the Park family is snatched by the beast, and it is up to the rest of her family to find her, before she becomes the beast's latest meal.

Firstly, I love monster movies: Mutated bears, over-sized alligators, packs of ravening Komodo dragons, the whole lot. Creature features are my favourite kind of Horror film. So, I really wanted to like The Host, but it wasn't to be.

There were three major problems with it:

The first can be seen with a quick look at it's IMDb page

Genre: Action / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller

Too many damned genres. It took itself too seriously to be a comedy, and yet was too light hearted to have any real message (though it did seem to be trying to make some kind of statement. Anti-pollution, anti-American or anti-government). The drama was misplaced and mixed in a confusing mish-mash with all the other styles.

Secondly, after the initial monster attack nothing happens for almost the entire film. The central family wander about looking for one of their own while the governments of Korea and America, apparently, do nothing. And that's it, they just wander about, occasionally hitting one another, presumably for a bit of comedy relief. This lack of action made my attention wander, and apparently it did the same for the director, as whole plot threads go unresolved (a mystery plague invented by the evil Americans is completely forgotten about, and is never resolved).

And lastly, the film is clumsily political. It paints the Americans as being stupid and evil, but gives us no American characters with any more depth than a cartoon villain. The opening scene has the most obvious stupid American vs wise Korean moment. With a Korean morgue assistant asking his boss, the coroner, not to pour chemicals into the Han river. The American coroner all but cackles maniacally as he orders the assistant to carry on. As well as being racist, it's lazy film-making and there is no excuse for that.

On the plus side, the monster is good, kind of a mix of The Relic and Deep Rising. Some of the movement effects are quite cool, and the initial monster chase through the park is a lot of fun. There are also some nice shots in the film. Some of which remind me, strangely, of the way Firefly was filmed (shuddering cameras, out of focus shots etc).There is also a nice scene at the end, where the hero and a little boy he has saved are sitting in the family's mobile food stall. It's night-time and snow is falling, the street-lamp is giving out a cold light, but the food stall has a warm glow coming from it.

Overall, I was really disappointed by this film. I'd been looking forward to a decent creature flick, and instead I get some pseudo-political,horror-comedy lite. Looking at the comments on IMDb I can't help but think that if this had been a US production it would have been slated. Just 'cause it's a foreign flick doesn't mean it's any good. There have been some great movies out of Korea in recent years (The vengeance trilogy and Brotherhood, for example), but this certainly isn't one of them.

For once I'm in favour of a remake. Tighten up the directing, improve the scripting and this could have been a nice film. As it is, it's not worth a couple of hours of anyone's time.