Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I've received this movie from a cousin in Norway and had to convert it from Norwegian to American format with a copied video. Comparing this film (1948) with the Heroes of Telemark (1965), Kampen om Tungtvannet (The Struggle for the Heavy Water) casts the saboteurs themselves, playing their respective roles, though actors were also cast to play the roles of the saboteurs who have given their lives in Norway's struggle for freedom in later campaigns. The plot is in four languages: Norwegian along with French, German and English (complete with Norwegian subtitles).

Impressive during this course of history was what led to the struggle. French scientists were interested in obtaining some two hundred kilograms of heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Vemork to take back to France in order to do lab studies on its effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Nazis, too, were interested in obtaining heavy water to build a secret weapon. The French were worried that the Nazis might take an early lead by invading Norway, and through secret codes, their man carefully eluded Nazi spies on his trip to Oslo where he received the heavy water and making it back without hindrance. He was watched by two spies as he boarded an airliner, but they did not see him hop out on the other side where he crossed the tarmac to another plane nearby where his cargo was waiting for him. This clever trick worked by using the airliner as a decoy that the Nazis later forced down in Hamburg.

However, the invasion of Norway on the morning of April 9, 1940, the Nazis took over Norsk Hydro and it was up to the Norwegian Underground and British intelligence in London to take action. Professor Leif Trondstad volunteered the services of eleven young Norwegians; the "Swallow" and "Gunnerside" groups who would successfully sabotage the heavy water production in Vemork. This was shown in detail on how they actually carried out the operation, including the sinking of the ferryboat after the Nazis abandoned Norsk Hydro to take the shipment of heavy water on rail cars to Berlin.

The quality of the film was fair though there were many splices in the film. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in World War II history.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," but it's a great film.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I had fun watching this movie, mainly due to Simon Pegg, who has quickly become a solid box office draw for comedy films.

He is hired from his dead end London publishing job by big shot NYC media mogul Jeff Bridges, as a writer, for one of his celebrity rags.

After paying his dues, he makes it into the higher echelons of celebrity writing hackdom (the "seventh room"), where he gets to be a minor celebrity himself. The storyline is very funny, and Gillian Anderson puts in an impressive supporting role as a cutthroat publicity agent.

Along the way to success, he finds the true meaning of love, etc.

The formulaic plot aside, the movie was very funny, mainly due to Simon Pegg, Jeff Bridges, and Gillian Anderson. Kirsten Dunst was good as the love interest. The rest of the supporting cast did its job well.

This was a good comedy & well worth checking out at the theaters.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.

We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.