IN: Review: I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further.

Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction.

If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex?

These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else.

Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: To a certain extent, I actually liked this film better than the original VAMPIRES. I found that movie to be quite misogynistic. As a woman and a horror fan, I'm used to the fact that women in peril are a staple of the genre. But they just slap Sheryl Lee around way too much. In this movie, Natasha Wagner is a more fully-realized character, and the main bad guy is a gal! Arly Jover (who played a sidekick vamp in BLADE) is very otherworldly and deadly. Jon Bon Jovi... okay, yeah, no great actor, but he does OK. At least he doesn't start to sing. Catch it on cable if you can. It's on Encore Action this month.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Several young Iranian women dress as boys and try to get into a World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain. When they're caught, they're penned in an area where the match remains within earshot, but out of sight. The prisoners plead to be let go, but rules are rules.

Given the pedigree of its director, Jafar Panahi, it was disarming to discover that Offside is a comedy, and a frequently hilarious one. In 1997's The Mirror, Panahi presents two versions of Iranian girlhood and leaves the audience to wonder which one is "real". In 2000's The Circle, several Iranian women step outside the system; their transgressions are different, but they all end up in the same tragic place.

However, thinking now about Offside, it's hard to imagine it as anything other than a comedy, because the situation it presents is so obviously ridiculous. As the women demand to know why they can't watch the soccer match and their captors struggle to answer, the only possible outcome is comedy.

What makes Offside most affecting is that the young women are not portrayed as activists attacking the system. They are simply soccer fans and patriots, and despite the fact that they are clearly being treated unfairly, they never lose their focus on the match and the historic victory that is within their nation's grasp.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive