Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Teenager Eddie spends his life being bullied and humiliated due to his obsession with heavy metal music. One day he finds out his hero Sammi Curr has died, supposedly burned by the establishment which wanted to put a stop to his music. But Eddie has his last record, never released, and when he plays it he starts receiving messages telling him how to deal with his tormentors. Before long Sammi has revealed he intends to return to life at the local Halloween party to exact revenge on the town which once mocked him.

Filled with humour and in-jokes, this is a highly entertaining film. Sammi himself is an original horror movie villain, plays on the 'evils of rock music' obsessions of the 80's. Well worth watching.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Tarantino once remarked on a melodrama from the 1930s called Backstreet that "tragedy is like another character" in the film. The same could be said- and not withstanding bringing up Tarantino- for Sidney Lumet's best work in years, a melodrama where character is of the utmost concern not simply because of what's at stake with the cast involved. Kelly Masterson doesn't have a masterpiece of a script here (it basically breaks into crazy killer mode by the end in a series of climactic events that only work by the very end, and even there suspension of disbelief is paramount), but her script does convey character before plot, and in a story where the actions surround a heist it's crucial to know who these people are beat by beat. It's bleak as hell, unforgiving as Satan, but also absolutely riveting 90% of the time.

Chalk it up not just because Lumet knows how to handle a non-linear script where we see the day-to-day actions of character to character before during, and mostly after the botched 'mom-&-pop' jewelry store robbery occurs, but because of the formidable cast assembled (which, I might add, is Lumet's specialty). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are brothers with their own respective financial f***-ups, and the former approaches the latter on what looks like a fool-proof heist: looting their own mother and father's jewelry store in Westchester. Hawke's Hank involves another shady character though, murders occur, and suddenly it's tragedy on a Greek scale affecting the brothers and their father, played by a perfect Albert Finney. It's the kind of material that most actors love- characters who, like in Dog Day Afternoon, are painfully human, flawed to the bone but only wanting love &/or things to be set right, and have the complete inability to fulfill their wants and needs.

In this case though Hoffman and Hawke are matched splendidly; Hoffman has, until the aforementioned last ten minutes, a super-calm and occasionally joking demeanor that reveals him as the brains of the operation, but then smaller scenes where he breaks down emotionally (i.e. with Finney or the car scene with Tomei) push his talents to the limit; Hawke, meanwhile, is called a loser by his ex-wife and daughter, can't pay any debts at all, and is called a baby by his own father, and he fills the bill of the part in all the ways that matter- he's not quite as flawed as his older brother, but who wants to pick a straw for that title? And Finney, as mentioned, is spot-on all the way through, making his turn in Big Fish look like child's play (the final scenes with him are terrifyingly tragic, his face recoiling in a horror that has built up all through the second half).

Also featuring supporting turns from a finely ditsy and perversely two-timing Marisa Tomei, Bug's Michael Shannon as bad-ass white trash, and Amy Ryan, Brian F. O'Byrne and Rosemary Harris making brief, exact impressions, this is a film with a tremendous lot of skill and heart- but not a forgiving heart- with a story that doubles back on details not for showy plot devices but to make clear every step of a family's perpetual downward spiral. If it's not as mind-blowing as Serpico or Network or the Pawnbroker or 12 Angry Men it comes as close as anything Lumet's done since.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Was it a thriller, as I thought when I saw the cover at the video library? No. Was it a 'food fr thought' as the author was maybe trying to make it? Not really. So what was it? It was a very average movie, that had great potential, and was nicely directed but let down by a confusing story without strong points, beginning middle and end, with poor acting expect from the serial killer guy, who although he seemed overzealous at some points delivered the best performance of the cast overall. It was nice cinematography, with good colours, cool hi-tec stuff, beautiful scenics but leaves you lost about where it's going and where it has just been. And with a feeling of let's just quickly wrap it up in the end. OK to watch if there's nothing else on TV.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The original Lensman series of novels is a classic of the genre. It's pure adventure SF with some substance (here and there) and I've always wondered why Hollywood hasn't filmed it verbatim because it's just the kind of thing they love: massive explosions, super-weapons, uber-heroics, hero gets the girl, aliens (great CGI potential), good versus evil in the purest form, etc etc. Instead (and bear in mind I'm a Japan-o-phile and anime lover) we get this horrendous kiddies movie that rips the guts out of the story, mixes in Star-Wars (ironic as the latter ripped off the books occasionally) pastiches and dumbs the whole thing down to 'Thundercats' level. To see Kimball Kinnison, the epitome of the Galactic Patrol officer and second stage Lensman portrayed as a small boy is pitiful (etc). I just can't understand why the makers did this because they obviously had the rights to the story and could have made far more money (FAR!) by telling straight. It makes no sense.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.

But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.

It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.

Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.

But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.

However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.

This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.

For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly.