Q: I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The movie deserves 2/10. 1.5 stars for the girl, (I'm sorry I'm biased, i think pretty girl is the only highlight of the movies), and 0.5 for the fact that it is shorter than Azumi 1. I watched Azumi 1 and 2 in 1 seating. I amazed myself being able to sit through it.

Lets talk about the plus points of the movie. The girl. Ueto Aya is cute. Thats all there is to salvage the whole movie. The fact is, if the main character was male, i am sure that most people (including me) would not have touched the movie at all.

Now lets talk about the minus points. Firstly, it is real draggy, with lots and lots of repeated scenes. Scenes of Nachi and Azumi keeps coming back. It seems more like a drama way of shooting. Typical Japanese dramas love flashbacks, and this movie too. Secondly, the movie is too unrealistic in a historical setting. I do not mind unrealistic movies. But this movie is like a poor way of showing creativeness, by throwing in ninjas that act like bears and spider webs, etc... it reminds me of Shinobi, though Shinobi is a movie with a fantasy setting. Moreover, to portray "i-don't-know" what effect, the director films people dying with blood spraying (literally) all around... people not realizing their head was cut off... etc.. etc... etc... Too many of these spoils the show. It seems like the anime influence is strong in this movie. It degrades the show greatly. Thirdly, Isn't Azumi supposed to be an assassin. She seems more like an one-man-army to me, just that she is a female. I don't think you see assassins charging into army camps. The only time i felt she acted "assassin-liked" was when she killed the Kiyomasa Kato at the end of Azumi 1. Lastly, the plot was thin in both movies. Its a linear plot with no development and surprises in any way. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.

Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.

It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.

Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.

Haunting questions, with or without the film. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.

Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!

On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare "Santa Clause vs. Satan" movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes.

Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!

Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive