Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:A brilliant Russian emigre devises the 'Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.

What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.

Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.

Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.

Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.

The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Textbook example of an underestimated movie.

Although one can watch this movie over and over again and laugh every single time and still see something new in it, it's still regarded as just another funny picture. And although the movie has inspired many and added it's quotes and images to the pyche of all it's viewers, Moon Over Parador still hasn't received the acclaim it should. Even the brilliant cast with Academy Award winner Richard Dreyfuss and Raul Julia, to mention one, is not able to change this perception.

But after watching Raul Julia as Roberto Strausmann make Richard Dreyfus an offer he can't refuse in a meatlocker by reading him a good review of a part that he once played one can only come to one conclusion: this stuff is timeless! In fifty years we will have the proof.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.

Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.

Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios.
+++++++++
A:
positive