Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Read My Lips (Sur mes levres)" (which probably has different idiomatic resonance in its French title) is a nifty, twisty contemporary tale of office politics that unexpectedly becomes a crime caper as the unusually matched characters slide up and down an ethical and sensual slippery slope.

The two leads are magnetic, Emmanuelle Devos (who I've never seen before despite her lengthy resume in French movies) and an even more disheveled than usual Vincent Cassel (who has brought a sexy and/or threatening look and voice to some US movies).

The first half of the movie is on her turf in a competitive real estate office and he's the neophyte. The second half is on his turf as an ex-con and her wrenching adaptation to that milieu.

Writer/director Jacques Audiard very cleverly uses the woman's isolating hearing disability as an entree for us into her perceptions, turning the sound up and down for us to hear as she does (so it's even more annoying than usual when audience members talk), using visuals as sensory reactors as well.

None of the characters act as anticipated (she is not like that pliable victim from "In the Company of Men," not in individual interactions, not in scenes, and not in the overall arc of the unpredictable story line (well, until the last shot, but heck the audience was waiting for that fulfillment) as we move from a hectic modern office, to a hectic disco to romantic and criminal stake-outs.

There is a side story that's thematically redundant and unnecessary, but that just gives us a few minutes to catch our breaths.

This is one of my favorites of the year!

(originally written 7/28/2002)
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Chris and Andre are two average, ordinary teens. Misunderstood by some and picked on by others. But together they stand and all will pay. Together they form "The Army of Two". They scheme and plan "Zero Day". That day is when they decide to storm their high school and inevitably murder 14 people in cold blood. Told through the tapes that they made "Zero Day", it is barely a fictionalized telling of the Columbine tragedy.

"Zero Day" is one of those movies that will mess with your head afterwards. The two main actors (Calvin Robertson and Andre Keuck) do such a good job that their characters seem like almost any disenfranchised teen walking the street. Their performances were very believable, you kinda liked these guys and that was scary. Shot on video almost totally from the teen's perspectives "Zero Day" feels very real and authentic, like you are right there. These kids try to rationalize their actions to the viewer and the actors sell it to you. But be warned it does follow the tragedy from beginning to end and the ending makes be shocking and uneasy for some.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.

Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.

Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.

You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.

He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.

Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.

So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.