Q: This anime seriously rocked my socks. When the anime first opened itself, I felt it was too slow; the story wasn't quite moving forward, and Shirou was quite an unimpressive male lead. Once he learns more about tracing, and you learn more about Saber and the Holy Grail War itself, the story pans out and you can see multiple facets of it moving together. It was fantastic.

Additionally, I felt that the way the characters developed was very true to form with the way real people develop, in the real world. There wasn't any stupid completely obvious things going on; the development of Ilya and Rin was interesting to watch, but I think the way Shirou and Saber grew in their certain personalities was just interesting to watch all on its on. A few of the "surprise" people that show up (Gilgamesh?) seemed to also be unique from the rest of the cast in one way or another, meaning we didn't have "Generic Bad-ass A" being replaced by "Generic Bad-ass B" as soon as A died.

Anddd, I loved the music. The opening music rocked, and the finishing theme from the final episode just...Seriously pushed forward the theme of the last episode even more. Good job, Type-MOON! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I saw this movie by accident yesterday at a cinema. I had some hopes for the movie because I really like Spoorloos (The Vanishing) and the book it's based on. The movie starts out okay as it at first seems to be a nice thriller. Quickly though the movie becomes a mess with uninteresting plotlines, characters that are never fleshed out and nobody in the audience cared for (like Marjoke) and terrible editing. The movie has fade to black bits that are just way too long, a messed up chronology that jumps back and forth and lots of scenes that just don't add anything to the story and could easily have been dropped. After suffering through the story you'll get treated to one of the worst endings I've seen in a very long. It should also be mentioned that the movie has lots of explicit sex scenes which you're probably used to if you watch a lot of dutch movies. It's hard to mention any good things about this movie. About a third of the audience had already walked out of the theater halfway into the movie and I didn't hear a kind word after the movie was over. Avoid this movie at all costs. it really destroyed any faith I had left in the dutch movie industry. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I have three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.

Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.

Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).

The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to say. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative