input: This is one of the worst movies I have seen recently. When a man says that he wishes he had a super power of being able to orally pleasure himself I pretty much consider the movie to be in the realm of childish 14 year old male fantasies. The bed room scene was over the top and reduced an intimate moment into a farce of biological functions akin to passing gas in public. From the first every other scene was a discussion about how little sex they where getting, how long its been since they got some, when their next sexual liaison will be, and with whom it should be with. On top of that the dialogue and acting was very poor and very forced, not felt, and they filled their lack of content with sleazy sex scenes. This could have been really funny because the concept is actually interesting but it is poorly executed here. Please, do not even think about taking anyone under 16 if you have to go and see it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie starts presenting a somehow original idea but became a great frustration later on. What is the deal of having an original start if the rest of the movie did little to avoid a cliched plot? The movie itself is very unbelievable. I would like to know how exactly someone enters a clinic, gets a nurse outfit, kills a doctor, takes out a patient in her bed, puts into his Chevy pickup and leaves? I guess no one could answer this question, so they just jumped to the other scene hiding these little details. The performances are just plain bad. The villain is just another "annoying crazy antagonist", no deepness, totally linear character. After 20 minutes of film, most scenes are unbelievable, seemed like they were put there just for the sake of the 90 minutes since they were totally unneeded. A doctor see a woman clearly under strong medication, is denied to examine her, gets kicked out of the house and simply leaves quiet? The ending scene made me burst into laugher, only Mickey Mouse could make it more out of reality. I'm giving it 2 out of 10 for the first lets say 10 minutes of movie.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: In a poor village in Mexico, the Colonel (Fernando Lujan) lives with his asthmatic wife Lola (Marisa Paredes) in an old house. Lola still grieves the death of their son Augustin some time ago. The colonel has been expecting for his pension of fighter in a war against Catholic church for almost twenty-seven years. However, for political reasons, the present government wants to forget this old fight. Without having any possession or money, but a valuable gamecock, they struggle to survival with the expectation of the acknowledgement letter from the government, recognizing the law and paying for the delayed pension. This slow and touching movie reflects the social and financial situation of most of the elder retired persons in third world countries. In Brazil, most of the retired persons has to survive with about US$ 80,00 per month. The debts of the colonel in the story were made to pay for a graveyard for his son, otherwise he would be buried as an indigent. Outstanding performance of the cast, in a very sad story that is reality in the poor countries. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): ('Nao se Escreve ao Coronel') (Do not Write to the Colonel)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.

The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative