Problem: This review is like what?

Review:D.W. Griffith could have made any film he wanted to after the enormous financial success of 'The Birth of a Nation'; he chose to make the most technically ambitious film to that date, 'Intolerance.' He took a risk with such innovations in film montage and form, and the well-known financial train wreck resulted. Buster Keaton doesn't take that kind of a risk with 'Three Ages,' a parody of 'Intolerance.' This is Keaton's first feature-length film of his own (he only acted in 'The Saphead'). He had the fallback plan of dividing the three episodes in this film into three separate shorts, which Griffith did do with 'Intolerance.' Keaton didn't have to. Chaplin had already succeeded with feature-length comedies, so if Keaton was taking a risk here, it was completely calculated.

Chaplin had already done a parody of another film, too, with 'Burlesque on Carmen' (1915). Keaton appears to allude to that film, as well. The wrestling scene in the Ancient Rome episode references the swordfight that turns into a wrestling match in Chaplin's film. The comical distance from the plot of both scenes is the same, too. Furthermore, Chaplin's film imitated the glossy style of DeMille's 'Carmen,' and Chaplin's film seemed a tribute to that film. Keaton doesn't attempt the radical editing, narrative structure or monumental nature in his parody, but it seems respectful of 'Intolerance' nonetheless. At least, the stories aren't told completely straightforward as in other post-'Intolerance' films, such as Dreyer's 'Leaves from Satan's Book' (Blade af Satans bog, 1921) and Fritz Lang's 'Destiny' (Der Mude Tod, 1921). There is some mild jumping back and forth between episodes.

Where Keaton did take risks, however, is in his physical, daredevil comedy. That's Keaton unintentionally failing to jump across buildings in the modern episode. Reportedly, he was convinced to alter the scene rather than attempt the jump again. And, it wasn't just Keaton who took risks; the anachronistic baseball gag, for example, was rather dangerous. Thus, although in a different way, Keaton, like Griffith, took risks with his big film. And, I think they both succeeded.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Steven Spielberg wanted to win an Oscar so bad that he figured that he wouldn't win by directing special effects epics (he was nominated for three of them: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial". So he decided to get very serious by directing "The Color Purple", a period film with no special effects. Spielberg's first serious drama is a remarkable movie. But the Academy voters who voted back in 1985 still didn't give Spielberg any respect. "The Color Purple" received 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but Spielberg was unfairly snubbed when he wasn't nominated for Best Director. It got worse on Oscar night when this film didn't win a single Oscar. It got completely shut out. That wasn't right. "The Color Purple" should have won a couple of Oscars including one for Whoopi Goldberg's spectacular film debut as Celie, a woman who suffers at the hands of an abusive husband (frightfully placed by Danny Glover), then gets stronger throughout the film thanks to some special friends. Oprah Winfrey also made her film debut here and gives a great performance as Sofia, one of those friends' of Celie. Since I'm from Chicago, I had already known Winfrey from her talk show (which at the time of this films' release hadn't gone nationwide). Like Goldberg, what a film debut! Margaret Avery is terrific as Shug Avery, another friend who also happens to be the mistress of Celie's rotten husband. All three actresses received well-deserved Oscar nominations for their work here (Goldberg for Best Actress; Winfrey and Avery for Best Supporting Actress). Set in the south during the first half of the 20th Century, "The Color Purple" is a film so strong that it made me cry at the end. It also made me laugh at times too. Why Academy voters were so hard on not nominating Spielberg for Best Director is a mystery that still puzzles me today. But Spielberg would eventully go on to win two Oscars years later for "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", making him one of the best movie directors of all-time. But he should have gotten nominated for this movie. The job that he did going from special effects blockbusters like "E.T." to a serious drama like "The Color Purple" was remarkable.

**** (out of four)
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs.

Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.

All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"

See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.

Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.

I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an
+++++++++
A:
negative