Problem: This review is like what?

Review:It is quite a simple not very active but very charming film. There were moments where I can see why Cher won the Academy Award for Best Actress, but there were other times when I wondered why Glenn Close didn't win for Fatal Attraction. Anyway, Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Cher plays Loretta Castorini, a simple woman with a low pay job who has just been asked by Mr. Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) to marry him. He promises her he'll be back in a month, as his mother is sick, so she mean while needs to get as much of his family to attend the wedding as possible. Only problem is, when she finds Johnny's one-handless brother Ronny (Golden Globe nominated Nicolas Cage), they start having a relationship, and there love goes on to that moon scene (where the title comes from). Also starring Oscar nominated Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini and John Mahoney as Perry. It ends with no wedding for Johnny and Loretta, but she and Ronny were happy together. It won the Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it was nominated for Best Director for Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Score for Dick Hyman and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay. It was number 96 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes ("Snap out of it!"), it was number 17 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, and it was number 41 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Yes. I'll admit it. I believed all the hype surrounding this piece of work, about the trials and tribulations of 6 people, living in Mexico City concerning their sexual lives. And so, I was really expecting to finally see a Mexican movie (in ages) that was both popular and interesting to watch. Unfortunately the film was utterly disappointing. The story presents us with two couples, both with very obvious marital problems. When a third party comes into the life of each couple, their problems reach a pivotal point. Or absolute absurd. The plot then turns into a battle of the sexes. The stance taken by each group (yes, they literally group, girls with girls and boys with boys) is blatantly stupid and childish (I guess the humor was supposed to be there). And it all goes from bad to worse. The performances range from good (Miss Zavaleta) to mediocre (Mr Bichir), with Serrano doing an acceptable job on his opera prima. However, the flat circumstances that make up the plot, the one-dimensional characters, the very poor (if not stupid) perception of what sex represents in a mature relationship etc, make the movie fail. Miserably. SPyL has had an (impressive) good reception at the box-office. Believe the hype at your own risk.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I used to watch this on either HBO or Showtime or Cinemax during the one summer in the mid 90's that my parents subscribed to those channels. I came across it several times in various parts and always found it dark, bizarre and fascinating. I was young then, in my early teens; and now years later after having discovered the great Arliss Howard and being blown away by "Big Bad Love" I bought the DVD of "Wilder Napalm" and re-watched it with my girlfriend for the first time in many years. I absolutely loved it! I was really impressed and affected by it. There are so many dynamic fluid complexities and cleverness within the camera movements and cinematography; all of which perfectly gel with the intelligent, intense and immediate chemistry between the three leads, their story, the music and all the other actors as well. It's truly "Cinematic". I love Arliss Howard's subtle intensity, ambivalent strength and hidden intelligence, I'm a big fan of anything he does; and his interplay with Debra Winger's manic glee (they are of course married) has that magic charming reality to it that goes past the camera. (I wonder if they watch this on wedding anniversaries?......."Big Bad Love" should be the next stop for anyone who has not seen it; it's brilliant.) And, Dennis Quaid in full clown make-up, sneakily introduced, angled, hidden and displayed by the shot selection and full bloomed delivery is of the kind of pure dark movie magic you don't see very often. Quaid has always had a sinister quality to him for me anyways, with that huge slit mouth span, hiding behind his flicker eyes lying in wait to unleash itself as either mischievous charm or diabolical weirdness (here as both). Both Howard and Quaid have the insane fire behind the eyes to pull off their wonderful intense internal gunslinger square-offs in darkly cool fashion. In fact the whole film has a darkly cool energy and hip intensity. It's really a fantastic film, put together by intelligence, imagination, agility and chemistry by all parties involved. I really cannot imagine how this got funded, and it looks pretty expensive to me, by such a conventional, imagination-less system, but I thank God films like this slip through the system every once in awhile. In a great way, with all of its day-glo bright carnival colors, hip intelligence, darkly warped truthful humor and enthralling chemistry it reminds me of one of my favorite films of all time: "Grosse Pointe Blank".......now that's a compliment in my book!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Awful dreams, wild premonitions, blasphemy and homosexual fantasies permeate Paul Verhoeven's (arguable) masterpiece of a true femme fatale who loves her men then kills them. Filled with blood and occasional gore, The Fourth Man is truly neurosis inducing. Men will literally leap when Renee swings out her scissors......
+++++++++
A:
positive