Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.

So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.

However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.

The main actors Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...

Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.

The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.

The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face...

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.

When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.

All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.

It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.

Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
If you like rap or hip-hop, watch this movie, although it's funny if you don't get the references, as a straight comedy.

Haven't seen much of the much hyped CB4, but what I did see didn't have the heart that this little stormer has.

Haven't heard from the people involved since, which is a surprise. The film is very similar to Spinal Tap, which is no bad thing, and I think a lot of the dialogue, while priceless in Tap is funnier here, probably because I'm more into rap than rock theses days, so my own judgment does cloud that point.

The rap songs are funny as hell, and it's basically spot the reference for most of the film, not all of them are in-your-face, which means the physical comedy and the one-liners get priority over the take-offs.

Great fun, one to watch twice if there ever was a movie.