Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.

But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.

This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.

Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.

Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.

Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie is a joke and must be one of the worst movies Stallone ever made. This is a typical 80s movie where you have one man destroying the whole army by himself. "First Blood Pt. 2" is very similar to Schwarzenegger's "Commando", but there you have Arnold killing the terrorist while here you have a specific nation showed as the bad guys. This movie is a typical American anti-Soviet propaganda. True, this was the peak of the Cold War, but I'm sick of having Communists or the Nazis always being shown as the enemy. There are so many American movies that have this one thing in common. Why can't there a movie that show Americans as the enemy? Who's going to believe that one lone soldier will destroy the whole army? Do you really think that something like this would have really happened? By the looks of it, an average, brain washed American viewer certainly would.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is one of the most overlooked gems Hollywood has ever produced. -- A young WWII British fighter ace whose plane is about to crash, has radio contact with a young American woman who comforts the brave pilot, knowing that within minutes he will be dead. For some reason the man who should certainly be dead walks away from the wreckage and eventually learns that he was meant to report to heaven. When a messanger is sent to ask the pilot to accompany him to heaven, the man refuses and demands to have his "day in court" to argue his case. The man argues that his situation had changed during the final moments of his earthly life, that he had fallen in love and therefor had become a different person, one who deserved a chance to live on.

The "heavenly court" is a cinematic delight! The "announcement of the jury of peers" is a definite highlight. The story, as fantastic as it seems, is an engaging one and will keep you spellbound for the nearly 2 hours play time. The final scene is simply beautiful and will require a "Kleenex treatment" for most viewers. This film is in my personal all-time favorite top 10, it has my highest recommendation!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B