Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The film is not visually stunning in the conventional sense. It doesn't present a series of pretty pictures. Instead it is a visually interesting film. It forces the viewer to constantly process or perhaps imagine the context of the various shots. This sort of thing is easy to try but hard to succeed at. The film refuses to use the crutch of a genre to help the less than fully engaged viewer get what's going on. Instead the film touches on and moves through a number of different genres. The trick to loving the film is being able to enjoy this playfulness. I suspect 99% of North American viewers will just not get it. If you try to pin down the narrative of this film, or the philosophical message, or the symbolist structure, etc. you will waste your time. There are none of these. The film only feints towards these genres and others at times. The only unifying force in the film is Claire Denis's own sense of what fits together. There are so few feature length films that come close to satisfying Kant's description of what art is, namely the enjoyment of the power of judgment itself instead of simply subsuming experiences under concepts. Film usually takes the easy way out and opts for the simpler pleasure of understanding what's happening. Most film is not art. Most film doesn't come close to art. When a film does, as this one does, and is still enjoyable by a large range of viewers, it's something of a miracle. My on negative comment is that at times I find the film too simplistically buying in to the various narrative threads that run through it. The Tahiti father-son narrative, even though it's not exactly conventional, ends up making things a little to clear and simple. It dominates too much.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Nothin'. There ain't nothing' in Room 237. But you ain't got no business going' in there anyway. So stay out. You understand? Stay out."

Never has there been such a feat of psychological horror as this film achieves. This is the highest rated horror film of all and rightly so. Jack nicholson is a superb actor and this is one of the greatest performances in cinema.

Its about a family moving to an isolated and deserted hotel for 5 months over the winter. Then the father (Jack) becomes almost possessed by the horrors in the hotel.

Kubricks direction is nothing short then perfect. The tense tracking shots, agonising music, mystical messages and perplexing plot makes this the best horror film ever made.

Throughout the film there is constant references to danger, death and horror. Red is used in EVERY scene. Is the red purposely put in by Kubrick? Of course!.

This is a definitive Kubrick classic and this is the third of his films I have given 10/10. He is a perfectionist in his direction and you can see it in all his films. He loves to perplex his watchers in everyone of his films.

I will be talking about this film for months to come. It has infinite depth.

In conclusion, this is the cornerstone of horror and tension. A masterpiece of terror 10/10
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by.what else.extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one Don't say I didn't warn you!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.

The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.

I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.

OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know.
+++++++++
A:
negative