Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.

Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.

Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.

Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.

Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.

Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.

And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's "perfect crime" of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.

Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.

As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.

O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.

"Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).

Good for Jane and her mate!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
My comments on this movie have been deleted twice, which i find pretty offending, since i am making an effort to judge this movie for other people. Please be tolerant of other people's opinion. Obviously writing in the spirit of Nietzsches works is not understood, so ill change my comment completely.

I think this is a really bad movie for several reasons.

Subject: one should be very careful in making a movie about a philosopher that is even today not understood by the masses and amongst peers brings out passionate discussions. One thing philosophers do agree on is that Nietzsche was a great thinker. So making a movie about his life, which obviously includes his 'ideas' is a thing one should be extremely careful with, or preferably, don't do at all. Wisdom starts with knowing what you don't know. One might think this is not a review of the movie itself, but the movie is not about an imaginary character, it is about the life of someone who actually lived and had/has great influence on the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow. If someone tells a story about a tomato, i can express my thoughts about the story itself, but also about the chosen subject, the tomato. There is a responsibility for producers when they make a movie about actual facts. Specially in a case like this and this responsibility was not taken.

Screenplay: One of the first things i noticed were the ridiculous accents. Why? It distracts from what it should be about; Nietzsche and the truths he found. It doesn't help putting things in a right geographical perspective or time! Come on, make it proper English or better yet; German! Even Mel Gibson got that part right... letting his characters speak some gibberish Aramaic in the Passion.

Secondly, it is well over-acted.

3d, Assante is not an actor to depict Nietzsche. Bad casting.

4th, facts are way off.

And so on. Its a waste of celluloid.