Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie is a little ray of sunshine in a dark season. It celebrates a quality best described as plain old friendliness. Morgan Freeman plays a character very like Freeman himself--a successful actor pushing 70. He has traveled to a small, rather grimy grocery store intending to research a part he might play, as a manager of such a place. He soon beguiles the staff and the customers, especially the lovely, if cranky, young woman (Paz Vega) who presides over the "10 items or less" checkout lane.

10 Items Or Less doesn't have a big statement to make and doesn't pretend that it does. It follows Freeman and Vega as they become friendly, and as the older man offers his counsel, in exchange for a ride home--the movie-company gofer who is supposed to pick him up never shows and Freeman has forgotten his own phone number so he can't call for help. I had a little case of the blues on a gray Sunday afternoon in New York City and this flick cured what ailed me.

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: If there were two more charming performers than Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith appearing together in a more charming movie in 1968, I don't know who they were. I first saw this delightful little satiric gem 25 years ago at the age of 16, and I consider any year in which I have failed to sit down to watch it again a wasted one. It's intelligent, quirky, neat, wistful, sweet, gently subversive, and utterly enchanting. The romance of these two social misfits is both richly comic and terribly moving - never more so than in Maggie Smith's desperate attempt to bring up the right card in the deck, a scene that's both ruefully funny and a perfect thumbnail portrait of heartbreaking loneliness. And that final freeze-frame on the anxious, concerned, loving face of Ustinov as he asks, "Are you all right?" - has anyone ever made the look and sound of devotion so perfectly and nakedly honest? I would never want to know anyone well who didn't love this movie.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.

I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.

In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?

[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]

The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!

The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")

What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.

Rating: 3

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Victor McLaglen, the title character of John Ford's THE INFORMER, reminded me of the circus man from Fellini's LA STRADA. Anthony Quinn played the brutish man, who may have even been influenced by the pug-faced, Oscar-winning performance given by McLaglen. Poverty-stricken Dublin is the true-life, atmospheric setting of the picture, which takes place in 1922. Dense fog and a long damp night are the main elements of a story about deep Irish patriotism and the fight of the Irish Republican Army. The conflict of individuality and the cause is what makes THE INFORMER tick. McLaglen's large, simple character just wants to go to America and we're reminded by signs of the price for a ticket frequently. Two different signs become the psychological centerpiece for the drunken Irishman. One is the previous, the other a WANTED sign. Should he do it and get the money to go?

John Ford once famously said, "My name is Ford. I make Westerns." After seeing this film, he obviously could do a heck of a lot more. The serious social issues dealt with here are heartfelt and ones you will find yourself thinking about. And the look of the piece is amazing, consisting of long dark shadows cutting into a miserable Ireland night. Ford was always known for his luminescent, gorgeous cinematography that helped to foresee the conflicts within his characters. This is hard in color, but he did it in pictures like THE SEARCHERS, painting John Wayne in a sometimes vicious manner. Victor McLaglen's performance not only benefits from the lighting, but by the sheer simplicity of his acting. He shoves a lot. He knocks people out. He is a brute who knows no better. He should, however, know whether or not to cross the IRA.

See the film to find out the gritty details. See it also for McLaglen and Ford's patriotic portrayal of the IRA. Max Steiner's score is innovative in how it matches gestures of the characters, placing more emphasis on them. This was usually only seen in silent films, especially Chaplin. The topic of naming names or "informing" is obviously still important. Just look at how the media covered this year's Oscars, giving much attention to the Elia Kazan scandal.