Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Now this is more like it! The first movie had some iffy dialogue and some weaker acting, but it seems like the team behind this got their stuff together for the sequel and put out a solid, thoroughly enjoyable, hilarious and creative comedy that will keep everyone on the edge of their seats the whole way through.

Seriously, this is just full of great stuff, brimming with creativity, and it's less of a spoof on 80s movies at the same time. The scenes in Hell are great, and so are the ones in Heaven. There's really no shortage to the mad-cap adventurous romp that this one promises, and you will never see another movie like this. Even the hammy final act of the movie isn't as bad as the first one, being generally heartwarming and enjoyable in its extremely cliche repertoire of family fun movie bliss. And even Keanu Reeves, despite looking about 30, isn't that bad here.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.

Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"