Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Let's eliminate any discussion about the use of non-Asian actors playing Asian roles. The movie is 67 years old. In 1937 studio chiefs believed that any actor could/should be able to play any role. Actors were under contracts, and did not always have a choice about what role they played. End of story.

This is a truly great epic story of love, individual rights, class strata, and men/women issues. The centerpiece of the film is two brilliant performances by Luise Rainer and Paul Muni.

Muni plays Wang, a Chinese farmer, who is about to take a wife (Rainer). From the start, he treats her with respect, during a time when women were looked on as little more than hired help. Without giving too much of the movie away, they go through the highs and lows of all relationships, and even though the story may take place in late 19th/early 20th century,the story and much of their feelings, seems credible.

Other than the fact that the movie is about 5-10 minutes longer than it needs to be, and the performances of Charley Grapewin and Walter Connolly are typical 1930's cartoon characters, this is a really wonderful movie that, unfortunately, has become a victim of political correctness.

9 out of 10
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:And my children love it now! Granted, I can watch it now and realize the animation wasn't that great, and that the plot is trite. Hey, if every villian introduced themselves by saying "I ammmmm DAAAARRRKK HEEEEAAARRT" I think they might be laughed at, but for young children it is a moral story with catchy music.

Music so catchy, mind you, that I still had the words memorized after not seeing this film in twenty years. I would definitely suggest this one for younger children.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Was it a thriller, as I thought when I saw the cover at the video library? No. Was it a 'food fr thought' as the author was maybe trying to make it? Not really. So what was it? It was a very average movie, that had great potential, and was nicely directed but let down by a confusing story without strong points, beginning middle and end, with poor acting expect from the serial killer guy, who although he seemed overzealous at some points delivered the best performance of the cast overall. It was nice cinematography, with good colours, cool hi-tec stuff, beautiful scenics but leaves you lost about where it's going and where it has just been. And with a feeling of let's just quickly wrap it up in the end. OK to watch if there's nothing else on TV.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.

Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.

This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.

Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.

Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
+++++++++
A:
negative