IN: Review: This film features Ben Chaplin as a bored bank employee in England who orders a mail order bride from Russia, recieves Nicole Kidman in the mail and gets more than he bargained for when, surprise, she isn't what she appears to be. The story is fairly predictible and Chaplin underacts too much to the point where he becomes somewhat anoying. Kidman is actualy rather good in this role, making her character about the only thing in this film that is interesting. GRADE: C
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a "must see." I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to "No one") character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.

This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.

In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist?

I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.

This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I saw this movie by luck, just because I was going through a phase where I had a new found admiration for Bill Pullman and wanted to see all of his recent movies and thank God I did! This Movie has stuck with me ever since and remain one of my favorites! The story revolves around two girls who embark on a dramatic journey in a foreign country where they'll learn the true meaning of freedom.

Alice and Darlene were just trying to spend a vacation together before going to college but their trip ended up a much more complicated story. The struggle they go through as they are arrested in Thailand and became prisoners is very moving and intense. The acting is amazing, the images extraordinary, the soundtrack is fantastic and so right for the movie and the message transmitted definitely powerful. I actually can't even find the right words to describe how this movie makes me feel every time I watch it. I know some people haven't appreciated as much as me by the rating the movie has but I swear, this one, you have to see!!! I promise it will stick with you!
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative