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

Answer: When I first read Hamlet, I couldn't help but think of the ending of OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE, where Bette Midler puts down the play because of how indecisive he is, and says, "Give me Romeo any day." Five acts of a man trying to decide whether or not to kill his uncle or not? Seemed like overkill to me. But upon further reading, I grew to really appreciate the play. I've seen the Olivier and Gibson movie versions(and part of the Nicol Williamson version), and all of them take their model from Olivier; the melancholy Dane. Olivier at least did it without being self-indulgent about it, but Gibson and, from what I saw, Williamson, looked like they went to the "Look, Ma, I'm acting! I'm acting!" school.

Now here comes Kenneth Branagh's version, which is breathtaking from start to finish. It finished #2 on my top ten of 1996(behind THE ENGLISH PATIENT, and ahead of LONE STAR, JERRY MAGUIRE, FARGO, SECRETS & LIES, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU, FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, BIG NIGHT, and LOOKING FOR RICHARD), and it's the best Hamlet, and maybe the best Shakespeare, put to film. Obviously, Branagh's talents as a filmmaker, for making the full-length version, in 70mm print, and not losing our interest for four hours, is great, but what seems to get overlooked in discussions about this film is his performance in the title role. This was my favorite performance of the year by far. Branagh avoids the melodrama which actors seem to get trapped in by playing Hamlet as a normal, regular human being, and makes us understand his actions and feelings each step of the way. And unlike Olivier, who depended mostly on his voice, Branagh uses his entire body to demonstrate the range of emotions that Hamlet goes through, but since he plays him as normal, none of it seems like scenery-chewing.

The rest of the cast is top-notch as well. I didn't even mind Jack Lemmon, though I agree he was the weakest member of the cast. The most surprising turn came from Charlton Heston; I've always found him stiff as a board, but he's quite commanding as the Player King. The other big surprise was Billy Crystal; I thought I'd find him all wrong as the 1st Gravedigger, but he was his usual funny self while being in character. All in all, a glorious film!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: What this movie does well is combine action and horror with comedy and drama in a unique way that teases more emotion form the audience than a typical horror movie. Unfortunately with disjointed storytelling, frustrating plot-holes, and contradictory scenes this movie mainly caused me frustration and is hardly "the greatest monster movie ever."

Let's start with the good stuff: comedy, acting and special effects. From the get-go, this movie starts off fast paced and cheeky. The opening scene - the monster's origin - is campy and quick, paying homage the the classic 'environmental' disasters that have given birth to so many other monsters. The pacing is fast, which was a welcome break from the long and often pointlessly dramatic opening scene from other monster flicks and allows the movie to jump right into the action. With in the course of 10 minutes you get the 'why', 'where,' and 'how' of the beast and are ready for action. In this the movie delivers.

After another short and well shot sequence the characters are introduced: the lazy son and his precocious little girl, kind grandfather, and talented sister (aunt) and, of course, the monster. The characters are introduced in context to each other and their conflicts are instantly apparent, allowing the audience to feel for them when the monster shows up suddenly to wreak havoc in the river area where they live and work.

The monster it's self looks great: alien yet familiar - kinda like a dog and fish pooped out by a squid. The effects of the creature are second to none and although it looks strange it is believable and at no point in the movie could you 'see it's strings.' Even the movement of the monster was horribly familiar, like a growing and excited rottweiler on linoleum the monster barrels through the crowd, slipping on surfaces, crushing and eating those in it's path. When the monster's path intersects with the family and tragedy ensues it truly is a painful moment, and you can feel the need for revenge but from there on out the movie's appeal begins to unravel.

Following the dynamite beginning the movie quickly loses focus and continuity. Plot-lines are introduced, then abandoned, characters change their position for no apparent reason, and comedy is interlaced into dramatic scenes confusing intent, while obstacles appear and disappear seemingly at random.

As for the comedy, let me say this: I'm willing to accept that a lot of the humor is probably cultural. I am not familiar with Korean humor so maybe things were lost in translation. However, as an Asian studies major in college and as someone who has been living in Japan for the last 5 years (still here) I'd like to think I have a better grasp on Asian humor than the average white-guy. That being said there were many parts of the movie that I understood were supposed to be funny, but, to me, weren't.

*********** SPOILER************* For example: after the initial attack where the young daughter is lost the family is at the funeral; everyone is mourning. A new character is introduced - a brother - and tension is raised even higher as it becomes obvious that the two brothers are at odds with one another. They both begin to grieve for their loss and wind up competing with each other over who is grieving harder. This competition is, at it's core, funny: two brothers who dislike each-other so much they even compete at a funeral - it shows the prickly nature of familial love common in Asian comedy. This subtle slap-stick comedy poking fun at family and ritualized mourning is supposed to be funny but, seemed really out of place in the context of a lost little girl. ************** END SPOILER **************

Then come the plot holes. there are so many points brought up in this movie that are never explained, or, worse, are explained and fretted over only to be proved impotent and pointless in the end. Finding out an obstacle isn't an obstacle can be a good thing for a character, but you'd expect some comment to that nature. Instead the audience is barraged by moments of anti-climax when problems just 'aren't there' anymore and no one gives an indication that it was ever a problem to start. So I ask you: why even bring it up in the first place?

This was prevalent through out the film as problems gave rise to new problems, and suddenly the world of the movie is filled with opposing forces that never resolved each other. Of course introducing new and greater problems is a time-tested story telling tradition, but if the introduction of a new arc leads the the forced shortening of another you would expect at least that the new arc gets full explanation. Not in this movie. Instead it was as if you get several stories, each only explained 20% of the way and, in the end, the parts never converge to complete the whole.

Again, I'm willing to accept that a lot of this might be 'cultural.' Maybe its in Korean story- telling tradition to put comedy inside a tragedy. Maybe it's normal for stories to go all over like a child who colors outside the lines on every-page, but never finishes one. Maybe it's OK to present a problem in order to develop the plot but then remove that problem randomly without any apparent solution or catharsis. Or maybe these are all hallmarks of sloppy work and bad storytelling rampant in a movie that seems to have a much better reputation than it deserves.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________