Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like "ftagn yog sototh" could possibly lead to any good?

The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's "hell is other people" with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.

Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Sublimity is the way we have to reach for The Beauty. And sublimity is the stuff this film is made of. If not his best, it's my most loved of all Bogdanovich movies.

This unique masterpiece remind us, as most of the other films from the director, what life is (or should be) about: love, lost (or failure) and hope and faith and charity. As the song from whom the films takes its title (Gershwin's well known composition) the film makes the impossible true, and tries to make us aware that no-one is able to judge anybody; all this with the lightness of a comedy and the timing of a masterful direction (the first ten minutes, with the detectives following the ladies, almost without a line of dialogue, constructed upon the looks and views of the characters --with that "Bogdanovich touch" based on the point-of-view-- is a class on Cinema Language, something that P.B. learned well from his admired directors from the Golden Age of the Movies). With a superb cast and a glorious soundtrack (including the best of Sinatra's "Trilogy"), this movie, full of self-consciousness and compassion, and far away from self-indulgence and emptiness (as some critics wrote), deserves a better place on the History of American Cinema than where it have been placed. It's not "long on style, short on substance": it is complex in its simplicity, and beautiful, absolutely beautiful.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I was very fond of this film. It kept me guessing till just before the very end what would happen. One of the better movies about the partition that I have seen. Urmila Matondkar is gorgeous too. This is one of the most personal and down-to-earth films I've seen on the partition. It's a little less mainstream than Gadar, and is really an emotional roller coaster where you start out with one opinion of what is going on, and come out completely one the other side. This isn't typical bollywood fare, but rather an art-house type film. The best part of this movie is that it doesn't dehumanize one side of the partition conflict when focusing on the story of another. It doesn't blame or castigate but rather lets you draw your own conclusions about things.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I will never be a member of any club that would have me,

especially this one.

Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a

female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for

blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's

wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage

is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire

family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who

attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this

up).

The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr

and Starr's kid.

Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He

spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than

Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like

he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the

most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes

for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster

and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid

also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching

violence against children is really entertaining.

The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer

Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.

It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's

coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the

background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include

vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.

Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's

"Martin."

Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at

arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one

tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,

you will need it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual

violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual

references, drug abuse, and adult situations.

+++++++++
A:
negative