Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: 49. PAPERHOUSE (thriller/horror, 1988) Sick in bed with a fever 11-year old Anna (Charlotte Burke) has only her drawings to keep her company. Her health progressively worsens as a series of mysterious 'black outs' grip her. In each of these episodes she dreams of a house in a desolate field, with only a sickly-invalid boy named Marc (Elliot Spiers) inhabiting it. When a dark, unknown danger threatens her idyllic "paperhouse", the life of Marc is put in jeopardy. Her life is also in danger as these dreams mirror her own state of health.

Critique: Haunting first debut feature from British director Bernard Rose. Taken from a fable ("Marianne Dreams") by Catherine Storr, it leaves plenty of other 'original' fantasy works in its wake. Whenever a story deals with dreams and nightmares it is hard to give it the mixture of fable and reality to make it work in film form. Director Rose successfully captures the children fantasy world aspect along with a darkness that seeks to usurp them.

Feverishly scored by Phillip Glass, Rose knows how to use music wisely with expertly timed 'jump out of your seat' moments. Most thrillers are very sloppy in this all-important aspect of scaring the audience into not knowing what the next scene will bring. I also like the way he captures suspense and never lets it go or falter sluggishly into the next sequence of events. Also, his mastery of placing objects within the frame (as in his P.O.V.shots) gives the cinematography an added dimension it would otherwise seem to lack. Only in Europe will you find such ominous looking places as the ones presented here: the lonely house, the fields, coastal towns, watchtower etc.

Rose would follow this film with "Candyman" (1992), a true 'thinking person's' horror gem and bona fide cult horror favorite.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.

Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.

This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
The film exposes the blatant exploitation of the Chinese worker - generally female - garnering footage from the Chinese business owner who shares his unashamed and delusional viewpoint, his American counterpart also as unashamed and delusional, the oppressed workers who are given a voice and, of course, the drunken Americans who wear the beaded necklaces mindlessly celebrating in New Orleans.

The glimmer of hope comes when some Americans are actually outraged that people making their beaded necklaces were getting paid like $0.10 per hour to do so. You also have a feeling that the workers may have a chance to escape working in the bead factory, but will probably do so when they get fed up with the punishment treatment popular with the factory owner and/or they just get too exhausted to work up to 20 hours a day of hard labor.

I have wondered where those necklaces came from, not realizing how completely grueling and arduous it would be to make them. I just truly appreciated this film as it beautifully portrays the impact American indulgence has over something we consider relatively innocuous in our society on peoples on the other side of the world. Honorable mention goes to Wal-Mart. It is simply amazing. And clearly, just the tip of the iceberg!