Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.

The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.

As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.

Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.

Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.

If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
Maybe I'm being too generous with the rating...but I just love this movie! I've seen it so many times, but every time I see it I fall in love with it all over again. It's just a simple romantic comedy, with nothing huge or monumentous that happens. But I'm a big romantic and this movie *is* romantic. I love Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins, and Walter Mathau is so funny. The scientists make me laugh so much...I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it. It's such a clean, good movie - and those are so rare now! My 20-year-old brother likes this movie, too, so it's not just a chick-flick. ;-) I recommend it if you need to laugh, or if you're just lonely and need to *watch* a romance, if you yourself can't participate in one. It's a good 'un!