Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.

Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayaru.

Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.

I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.

The roles are well played but the story is thin.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").

And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.

But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.

Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Forgive me for stating the obvious, but some films are good and some films are bad. Of course, there are extremes within those two broad categories. Films such as The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars slot comfortably into the good category. At the other end of the spectrum there are those films that simply don't deserve to be mentioned by name. Occasionally however, someone produces a truly woeful film. A film that should be singled out as a demonstration of how awful a film can be. A film that is more than bad. Such a film is Maiden Voyage.

Briefly, Maiden Voyage is a story about a luxury cruise ship that is hijacked by a gang of evil criminals who demand a ransom from an equally evil, scheming ship's owner. Of course, there is an all American hero on board, complete with chiselled jaw and sculptured chest, who saves the day.

This is a production that plumbs new depths. Everything about it is bad. The acting, the direction and the so-called plot are breath-takingly poor. In short, it is an insult to the intelligence of any unfortunate viewer. Even an American viewer would be annoyed by its shortcomings.

Yes, it's that bad.

I will resist the temptation to compose a list of things that angered me about this film. However, its dumber-than-dumb conclusion should serve as an adequate example of what I mean.

Imagine in your mind that you are an evil hijacker and you are stood in an open lifeboat on a calm sea. You are in company with the hero who holds a ticking bomb. Said hero throws the bomb to you and dives overboard. What would you do? I don't know about you, but I would throw the bomb as far as I possibly could into the sea. Not this guy. He watches as our hero swims away and then he tries to disarm the bomb with unfortunate (for him) results. Enough said. Such a demise would merit a mention in the Darwin Awards website and might also be a suitably apt conclusion to the production team's lives.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A beautiful new print of "Zabriskie Point" is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful "extras" will be out in the near future.

I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a "near-miss" masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.

The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.

There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.

Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.

I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.

I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans.
+++++++++
A:
positive