Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Though I'm not the biggest fan of wirework based martial arts films, when a film goes straight for fantasy rather than fighting I get a lot more fun out of it and this film is one of the best in terms of fantastical plotting and crazy flying shenanigans. Ching Siu Tung has crafted here an enchanting treat with fine performance and much ethereal beauty. The great, tragic Leslie Cheung plays a tax collector hero who stays the night in a haunted temple and gets involved with a stunning fox spirit and a wacky Taoist. Cheungs performance is filled with naive but dignified charm and Wu Ma is pleasingly off the wall as the Taoist monk, who shows off some swordplay and even gets a musical number. Perhaps best off all is Joey Wang as the fox spirit, truly a delight to behold with every movement and gesture entrancingly seductive. The film takes in elements of fantasy, horror, comedy and romance, all stirred together into a constantly entertaining package. Ching Siu Tung, directing and handling the choreography gives some neat wirework thrills, and fills the film with mists, shadows and eerily enthralling benighted forest colours, giving every forest scene a wonderfully bewitching atmosphere. Also notable are the elaborate hair stylings and gorgeous flowing garments of the female characters, with, if I'm not mistaken, Joey Wang sporting hair done up like fox ears at times, a marvellous touch. Though the film features relatively little action and some perhaps ill advised cheesy pop songs at times, this is a beautiful piece of entertainment, with swell characters and plotting, even the odd neat character arc, a near constant supply of visual treats and copious dreamy atmosphere. An ethereal treasure, highly recommended.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store

This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: What I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of this movie.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.