Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.

The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)

Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.

One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.

So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.

***spoiler/question: * *

At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Esther Kahn is a young Jewish woman living in an overcrowded, Jewish Ghetto in 19th century England. She is surrounded by looming, oppressive, dreary, featureless, worn brick architecture, narrow sidewalks and streets, blacked out windows, and hordes of black-and-brown jacketed crowds.

She lives in a tiny apartment with her large family whom operate a clothes shop within the apartment. As child, she worked, had no privacy, wore colourless clothing, shared a bed, and remained silent to avert the mockery of her mother and siblings who ridiculed her for mimicking them out of boredom.

As a young woman, her life remains the same - she has no privacy, lives in a state of mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and inertia, exudes a blank, featureless expression, is clothed in plain, unremarkable clothing, and is continuously oppressed and dwarfed by the grey, mundane, massively imposing buildings, and narrow streets, and narrow hallways, and narrow doorways, and her loud-mouthed mother and siblings, and the prosaic, banal lifestyle of her family.

Her only form of mental escape is the Yiddish theatre. Sitting in the balcony, front row, leaning over the rail, there is a vast space between her mind and the stage, a space that enables her to breathe, think, feel, and yearn.

Yet despite the freedom of thought the open stage provides for Esther, her face and body remain torpidly somnolent, impassive, dispassionate.

The plain and common looking Summer Phoenix brilliantly conveys Esther's emotionless demeanour - Summer/Esther does not convey any desire to want anything or anticipate anything.

After an unusual explosive confrontation with her mother, Esther finally decides to break free from the bleak life she is trapped in.

She is eventually cast in minor parts in a few stage plays, and meets Nathan Quellen, portrayed by quintessential British actor Ian Holm, who commences to teach Esther the technical skill of acting.

From this point forward, Esther begins a grueling dual journey of learning how to act and learning how to feel.

She begins experiencing emotions she never felt before, and she begins gaining the experience she needs to fully comprehend and wield the technical aspects of acting.

Nathan walks her across the stage through the physical and emotional steps of surprise, hesitancy, anger, disgust, self-loathing, etc; she then begins walking through those emotions in her personal life.

There are three truths, Nathan tells her - the truth of how a character reacts, the truth of how the actor would react, and the truth that a character and actor are not the same person.

These technical steps and three truths slowly deconstruct Esther's defenses and lead her to two edifying experiences in the denouement of the film which mark the beginning of her freedom of thought, movement, and emotion.

Esther Kahn is a technically challenging film to watch because of its odd and narrow camera shots, lackluster photo direction which conveys the realistic lackluster setting of the Ghetto, and Summer Phoenix's characterless and insipid and unappealing portrayal which brilliantly conveys Kahn's mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and lackluster nature.

A must-see film for people who want to learn the technical craft of acting, and for people who appreciate minimalistic films and character studies.
+++++++++
A:
positive