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

Answer: Have to be honest and say that I haven't seen many independent films, but I thought this one was very well done. The direction and cinematography were engaging without becoming a distraction. The angles, settings, and lighting used successfully created the nightmarish world in which the main character was trapped. Many haunting and memorable images from the film stick in your mind long after it's over (always a sign of a good director).

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

Answer: Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.

The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.

The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.

Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.

Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.

The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.

The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.

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

Answer: I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."

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

Answer:
This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.