Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I borrowed this movie despite its extremely low rating, because I wanted to see how the crew manages to animate the presence of multiple worlds. As a matter of fact, they didn't - at least, so its seems. Some cameo appearance cut rather clumsily into the movie - that's it, this is what the majority of viewers think. However, the surprise comes at the end, and unfortunately then, when probably most of the viewers have already stopped this movie. I was also astonished when I saw that the Brazilian-Portuguese title of this movie means "Voyage into Death". This is THE spoiler.

That this movie is about a young girl who goes ALONE onto this boat (on reasons that are completely unclear), you understand only in the last 5 minutes. When you start the movie with the English title "Haunted Boat" in your head, you clearly think that the cameo appearances of strange figures are the "ghosts". But in reality, this movie is not like most other horror movies told from the distant writer-watcher perspective who can at almost any time differentiate between different levels of reality, it is told from the perspective of the young girl. We see her not alone, but together with the four friends because SHE sees them. We do not see that she is alone. So, the parallel worlds are not the cameo appearances flickering into the picture-stream, but the main story! We have at least two parallel worlds: The world in which the girl is and the world in which the 4 friends are. An intrusion of a third world is probably the young man with the medical skills who comes for a short time on the boat.

I cannot get rid of the deep conviction that with this movie, the movie-makers "cheated" an audience of several thousand people by letting them believe that what they have done is more or less a sophomore film-student elaborate with hastily "chosen" pseudo-actors that have met just the night before the start of the shooting in a dump after at least twelve beers. How mistaken can one be! But in addition to this big surprise which one learns only in the very last minutes, the end that follows gives another surprise. The girl is saved by a crew in a helicopter and another boat. When she has recovered from her shock, she visits again the place at the harbor where she ascended the boat together with the four friends. And there they are again! They wave her to them from the boat which has already taken off shore. She jumps into the water, arrives at the boat - and they are away. Miraculously beautiful. It remembers me a bit to the end of a poem by a Rhetoromance writer: When I awoke, I saw Death standing at my bed. But I closed my eyes. When I opened them again - he was gone.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: The words "Swedish" and "Action movie" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.

Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.

This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no "ups", just "downs". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the "cool" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.

And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.

I rate this 4/10 for effort.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers?

Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.

Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).

Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.

The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.

The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.

The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.

An absolute must-see.