Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: It's been a while since seeing this the first time, so I watched it again with the second movie in the series. While I realize there is a 3rd movie out that I haven't seen yet, I'll review under the original title...

Just from the standpoint of production value, screen writing, and movie making, this movie fails on many levels, though it succeeds on a few as well. What can you expect from a low-budget, "B" movie? Not much, and it works from the standpoint of production. However, the writing is certainly disjointed, with little in the way of character development...exactly what I'd expect when there is an agenda to a film. I didn't have a problem with the acting...the cast is solid; however, the screenplay in both movies gives the actors little opportunity to really stretch themselves. Because the film is "Christian," this is predictable, as you can't very well portray violent chaos of the "end times" without also breaking some of the ethics which are normally associated with Christianity. In other words, the mistake comes in making this into a G-rated film when the content, even in the most conservative of Bible interpretations, would be R-rated by any measure. So, if the purpose of the movie is to scare people into Christian faith, then the movie should be somewhat scary, right? However, you can't comment on a film adaptation from a book without commenting on the book, or in this case, series of books. There are certainly plenty of Christian materials worthy enough to be made into movies...but not the "Left Behind" series...and these movies ultimately fail because, while being best-sellers, they are poorly written novels based on bad theology.

As a Southern Baptist minister, I confess that the books were a guilty pleasure for me, though I have yet to finish the last two books of the series. I have described them as decent fiction, and if the books would take the point of view that this is one "possibility" or interpretation of the subject of biblical eschatology (study of the "end times), then I could live with that. However, this series is divisive in Christian circles because it promotes the "literalist" interpretation of all Scripture above a more proper hermeneutic. Inevitably, this leads to the "pre-trib, pre-millenial" dispensation point of view, which confines an all-powerful God far too by humanity's world. In other words, as I've always said, God shouldn't need our helicopters and bombs to do his ultimate work. But because many people, particularly unstudied Christians, can't think beyond their own world-views, we are left with a pro-conservative, fundamentalist stance with regard to Bible interpretation, and attempts to push it through as the "only" interpretation.

Thus, the books carry with them an agenda, not so much to get the "lost" to understand their need for Christ, but to state that the fundamentalist point of view is the only valid way to understand the Bible. I recall very clearly reading (several years ago) in the second novel a scene where the characters reference a person who was "left behind" BECAUSE of his non-adherence to this point of view; as if "real" christians worthy to be "raptured" couldn't possibly hold to another eschatology. This is disturbing for several reasons, the least of which is because a "rapture" is only briefly mentioned in Scripture and it's connection to real, end-time prophecy is tenuous at best.

But the real issue with these books is comes in the way they divide the Christian community and how they portray "true" Christian behavior. Ultimately, I feel they harden more people to an otherwise legitimate faith/religion instead of win people towards it. It turns all Christians into caricatures, equally disdained and laughed at by the world despite the fact that there is theological room for a wide diversity of believes within Christian thought and practice. As a Christian body, on the whole, we've done enough of that kind of damage to society over 2000 years of history...and we certainly don't need to promote it by film to thousands, maybe millions of others.

Thus, the "Left Behind" movies fail because the "Left Behind" books aren't worthy to be interpreted into movies.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: My Tutor Friend is a well scripted romance comedy movie that has something similar to My Sassy Girl.. there's no kissing/sex scenes. Hollywood should learn more from Korean productions. Sex is not always required in a good romantic movie.

The movie is of light hearted tone with occasional cartoon CG scenes blended into the movie. I like the part when Ji-Hoon almost kissed Su-Wan. The funniest moment is when Ji-Hoon punched Su-Wan's first love because he dumped Su-Wan for another girl and he is going to be a father soon. How he became a father was revealed in the next scene, which brings smiles to the audience.

Mao points: 8/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Farrah Fawcett gives the best performance by an actress on film in this gritty real life attempted rape thriller where she turns the tables & gives James Russo a taste of his own medicine. A must see for any movie fan.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is not the worst film I have seen of Peter Greenaway but it is close. That dishonor goes to the even worse Pillow Book. This director's films of 3 I have seen I find them all to be miserable. Like The Cook...,whatever positive cinematic flourishes he displays, are totally unredeemed by the repugnancy of his material and overall presentation.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: It was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including John Ritter, Ben Gazarra and Audrey Hepburn. They looked quite wonderful. But that was it. They were not given any characters or good lines to work with. I neither understood or cared what the characters were doing.

Some of the smaller female roles were fine, Patty Henson and Colleen Camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. They showed some talent and it is sad they didn't go on to star in more and better films. Sadly, I didn't think Dorothy Stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role.

The film appears to have some fans, and I was very open-minded when I started watching it. I am a big Peter Bogdanovich fan and I enjoyed his last movie, "Cat's Meow" and all his early ones from "Targets" to "Nickleodeon". So, it really surprised me that I was barely able to keep awake watching this one.

It is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. Five years later, Bogdanovich's ex-girlfriend, Cybil Shepherd had a hit television series called "Moonlighting" stealing the story idea from Bogdanovich. Of course, there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue, while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines.

Bottom line: It ain't no "Paper Moon" and only a very pale version of "What's Up, Doc".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I chuckled a few times during this movie. I laughed out loud during the notarizing of the margarine company handover (pun intended).

There are three segments in this movie. The first one is supposed to be a spoof of "woman 'grows up' and launches career" movies. The Tampax®️ box was the funniest thing in this segment. Most of the cast members aren't listed here on IMDb. They are the lucky ones. Few other people will be able to connect this thing to the ruin of their acting careers.

The second segment is a spoof of "sharkish woman sleeps her way to the top and seizes control of huge industry" movies. Robert Culp has several funny moments, all physical humor, including the aforementioned handover. After his character dies the segment sinks lower and lower as Dominique Corsaire rises higher and higher. By the time she becomes First Lady I wanted to rip the cable out of the TV and watch "snow." I switched to Pakistani music videos instead. I don't understand Urdu, or whatever language the videos were in. It was still better than listening to the dialogue in this painfully dull "story."

Then came "Municipalians" with the *big* stars, half of them on screen for less than a minute: Elisha Cook, Jr., Christopher Lloyd, Rhea Perlman, Henny Youngman, Julie Kavner, Richard Widmark and ... *Robby Benson.* It's supposed to be a spoof of "young cop teams with hardened, substance abusing older cop who needs retirement *badly*" movies. The horizontal flash bar on the police car is very impressive. It was interesting seeing old RTD buses, and a Shell gas station sign, and an American Savings sign -- none of them are around anymore. Nagurski's "Never stop anywhere you might have to get out the car" made me smile momentarily. Then they discuss how boring the young cop is. A lot. Back and forth about how boring he is. That was as boring as this description of how boring it is. Nagurski's Law Number Four, "Never go into a music store that's been cut into with an acetylene torch," made me think that the music store is a real business at the actual location the dispatcher gave. Thinking about that was more interesting than the set-up for the gag which followed. Young Falcone (Benson) gets shot. A lot. He becomes a hardened cop like Nagurski. The segment keeps going. On and on. And on. It won't stop. It rolls relentlessly onward no matter how many times you wish he'd just *die* already so this thing will end. It doesn't. It goes on and on and on.... Then a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" episode which I've seen four times already comes on. Thank God! This abysmal movie ended while I went to get the mail.