Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I was impressed by the beautiful photography in this film, which was shot on location in Alaska. Although technically a melodrama, we see lots of activities Eskimos are involved in, such as hunting, dancing, building igloos, etc. And their customs, such as offering their wives to visitors, are routinely in the story. The hunting sequences were sometimes from stock footage, as it was easy to recognize some rear projection scenes of animals, but even these were fascinating. Spear fishing for salmon, hunting for walrus, caribou and even a polar bear and a whale made it seem like a documentary at times. There was no cast listing, which reinforced the documentary flavor. The film-makers tried to make it seem very authentic, with the natives speaking only in an Eskimo language that was either translated by someone on screen or by intertitles. The introduction stated that except for the white traders and the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, there were no actors in the film, but this was not strictly true. The two leading characters, played by Mala and Lotus Long, were Eskimos by birth, but were professional actors with credits for earlier films and you could see sometimes they had makeup on. But they were excellent in their roles and they went on to have Hollywood careers. All in all, the film is definitely worth a look.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:While this was a better movie than 101 Dalmations (live action, not animated version), I think it still fell a little short of what Disney could do. It was well-filmed, the music was more suited to the action, and the effects were better done (compared to 101). The acting was perhaps better, but then the human characters were given far more appropriate roles in this sequel, and Glenn Close is really not to be missed, as in the first movie. She makes it shine. Her poor lackey and the overzealous furrier sidekicks are wonderful characters to play off of, and they add to the spectacle Disney has given us. This is a great family film, with little or no objectionable material, and yet it remains fun and interesting for adults and children alike. It's bound to be a classic, as so many Disney films are. Here's to hoping the third will be even better still- because you know they probably want to make one. ;)
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I can't think of much to say about this film.

This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.

The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved.

The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage.

If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I could not take my eyes off this movie when it showed up on cable. The dialogue and costumes are of a quality most readily associated with soft-core porn. In this case the expedient plot serves as a vehicle not for sex but for serial thrashings with nunchuks. (Perhaps for sex as well, but not on Indian TV, anyway.)

Not being a fan of the genre I couldn't place Jeff Wincott, and had no leads to search from. Only once Brigitte Nielsen traded in her futuristic-nurse coif (so mayoral!) for the high-top fade we remember from Beverly Hills Cop II did I make the positive ID on her.

This movie will no doubt entertain any admirer of early 90's couture or nod-and-wink schlock a la Paul Verhoeven. Can we add a genre tag for "so-bad-it's-good"?
+++++++++
A:
positive