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

Review:"The Cat's Meow" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible.

Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in "Paper Moon", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., "Yes, We Have No Bananas"). When Hearst insists everybody "Charleston, Charleston!" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot.

The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.

*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.

Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.

The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.

tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.

If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.

You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.

All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.

If... only I could get my two hours back.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.

There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.

Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:Miike makes a children's adventure film, not unlike The Neverending Story. It's actually one of my least favorite of the director's films. Even the worst Miike is better than a good many films, though, and The Great Yokai War has a lot in it that's worth recommending. It's at least as loud and obnoxious as most American kiddie flicks. I might think kids themselves would find a lot to like in it (the DVD includes an English dub), but, like all of Miike's films, it can tend to move very slowly. That means you've got kind of a weird unevenness, where sometimes there's a loud action sequence and the next scene will drag on forever as characters converse. The story itself isn't very good, either, and Miike's perpetual flaw of incoherency rears its ugly head. Most of what I liked came from the technical side of things. This has to be Miike's most expensive movie, and it looks fantastic. "Yokai" are Japanese spirits, and they come in all different, fantastical forms, and the costume designers, special effects crew, and everyone else involved in the designs just did an outstanding job. I've seen the 1968 film this one is supposedly based on (Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare), and the cheesy rubber-suit monsters you can find there have been transformed into more believable entities using state-of-the-art makeup and special effects. I especially liked the look of one of the bad guys (or girls, in this case), Agi, who sports dark eye shadow, a tight, white outfit, a white beehive hairdo and a whip. She's played, incidentally, by Chiaki Kuriyama, whom you might remember as Lucy Liu's teenage henchgirl in Kill Bill: Vol. 1. The hero of the film is played by Ryunosuke Kamiki, who provided voices for Miyazaki's Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.
+++++++++
A:
positive