input: Did I miss something here? This "adaptation" has everything that Brookmyres first novel had. Everything apart from the story, the laughs, the black humour, the political intrigue, the characterisations, the plot, and some semblance of sense.

Spoilers;

Godamnawful, from beginning to end. They made a mockery of the plot, they had a romance between Parablane and a cop, and what was that all about, Dr Slaughter was portrayed as a bystander, and who the hell was Annette Crosby supposed to be?

It looked like they had made a three hour adaptation, then chopped it down to 90 minutes. (Even though the 90 minutes seemed to last forever.) Please, please, do not do this to any other of Brookmyres books, (especially "Country of the blind.)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license.

Which might one aver?

In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.

In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.

How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?

The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.

That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.

So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.

In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.

For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.

Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.

David Broadhurst

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative