question: Visually creative, but also aimless, repetitve, and devoid of character development.

numbered reviews: 1. Gilliam shows that there is something appealing about drug highs. It wouldn't be honest to say otherwise. And, yes, they'll destroy you. It's honest about that too.
2. There is not enough of the drug dementia and too much philosophizing by Gilliam.
3. It is Gilliam fastening his lance to a Chevrolet convertible and charging at the windmills with his foot to the floor
4. Darn funny, but those moments of seemingly-inspired humor are more than offset by the rest of the movie, which is nearly unwatchable.
5. This big-screen adaptation of the 1971 cult classic is a sure candidate for many worst ten film lists.
6. This movie inspires no fear in me, but loathing? Yes. Oh yes.
7. It's a scattershot rendering of a scattershot story told with scattershot effectiveness.
8. To actually see the images instead of imagining them changes the dynamic and the whole affair lurches into seediness, sleaze and too much vomit on screen.
9. It may start off as a lighthearted, excess-filled, party-road-trip movie, but Depp is reigned in a little towards the end as his character (a stand-in for Thompson) poetically bemoans the sad failure of the late-60s ideals and values.
10. A beautiful cinematic showcase for Thompson at the peak of his writing skills.


question: Bold performances and sensitive, spot-on direction make watching this difficult tale of trauma and abuse a thought-provoking, resonant experience.

numbered reviews: 1. A fearless, challenging film with terrific performances.
2. As tough as it is to take in, and perhaps even tougher to contemplate, Mysterious Skin demands serious consideration and appreciation for Araki's evident maturity. He's a grown-up, finally.
3. Heim wrote a killer tale with Skin, but in giving it to Araki, the power of the words has been dissolved into mush, or, in many instances, simple shock cinema.
4. The film has a weird buoyancy.
5. Gregg Araki shows skill in adapting another's work and he marshals his youthful cast with a deft hand.
6. Starts to play like dada.
7. You're likely to be bruised by its truths. To his credit, Araki has made that a risk well worth taking.
8. An exploration of child abuse that reflects grim, unrelenting intelligence.
9. Of all the recent films about child abuse, Mysterious Skin stands out as the one that most directly and eloquently addresses the emotional toll of the experience.
10. Just another trashy look at America as the land of imbecilic perverts.


question: Patrice Chéreau's exquisite rendering of Joseph Conrad's The Return brings underlying passions to surface in a long-suffering marriage.

numbered reviews: 1. Chronically impassive and faultlessly incurious about others, Gabrielle has been, for ten years, the perfect ornament of a social circle where 'emotion and failure are feared more than war.'
2. This is a careful and cinematic adaptation that rings with painful truth.
3. Although it is possible that French actress Isabelle Huppert makes the occasional false move, she does not make them in front of a camera.
4. Co-screenwriter/director Patrice Chereau doesn't seem in any particular hurry with the pacing. He practically dawdles, which makes the whole thing feel longer than its relatively scant running time.
5. Rewards those who stay with it...at least those who use terms like deconstruction.
6. A film that matches all too well the times it portrays, Gabrielle is claustrophobic, stifling, and not a little crusty. Saved only by its exquisitely bitter performances and immaculate design.
7. Both protagonists give elegant and moving performances.
8. A work of stunning intensity underneath opulent fabrics
9. For the most part, [Chereau] lets Huppert and Greggory provide the emotional impact. They respond accordingly, imbuing their mutual suffering with an exacting and moving finesse.
10. Most of all, we think, 'Gosh, all of these experiments make for a cold, uninvolving film.'


question: Guy Ritchie's directorial style might not be quite the best fit for an update on the legendary detective, but Sherlock Holmes benefits from the elementary appeal of a strong performance by Robert Downey, Jr.

numbered reviews:
1. Sherlock Holmes has something for everybody; an accessible film is exactly what Guy Ritchie's been looking for.
2. In a year in which actioners featured robots with arthritis and sinking ice, Sherlock Holmes might as well be considered a work of genius.
3. The very idea of handing him over to professional lad Guy Ritchie, to be played as a punch-throwing quipster by Robert Downey Jr., is so profoundly stupid one can only step back in dismay.
4. There's plenty of fun and entertainment to be had from Guy Ritchie's take on the character for both fans of Doyle's work and for those just getting to know Holmes and Watson.
5. ... Bears the stamp of its director, Guy Ritchie, much more so than that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ...
6. The plot races and roars through a deliciously grungy combination of real sets and CGI for all sorts of big-action scenes in and around turn-of-the-century London.
7. Ritchie provides big dumb fun, but it's hard to imagine worse casting than Bob Downey, Jr. Maybe Verne Troyer or RuPaul. Downey's self-important bluster and lousy accent ruin the film. But pleasing score from Hans Zimmer's team.
8. Proof that Guy Richie can still make good films, though it's not without flaws.
9. Purists can, and certainly will, spend much time arguing how much is true to the material and how much was changed but the rest won't, and shouldn't care. The fact is, Sherlock Holmes is just down right entertaining.
10. Ultimately, it achieves what it sets out to do: to entertain.