Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??" and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.

When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.

...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then "2001" would suck and so would "Forest Gump" and "Silence of the Lambs".
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.

As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).

Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?
+++++++++
A:
negative