Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like

before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...

lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, ever

and before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever before

the sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong

and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not there

editing-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard

overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.

my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risque content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality

this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Sure, the history in this movie was "Hollywoodized"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.