Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I truly enjoyed the movie, however, I did not realize that Little Richard had so many things going on in his life. First of all I was not aware of Lucille. There is very little (hardly any) mention of females being intimately involved with Little Richard. Even in his life today there is no mention of any involvement of females in a romantic way. I wonder why this part of his life was not mentioned. Overall the movie was great. I also did not like Leon playing the part of Little Richard, he is a good actor but I feel that the part of should have went to a different actor. Visually he did not remind me of Little Richard. I also was totally unaware of the promiscuity that Little Richard was a part of. From the movie he was pictured as a sexual addict. In todays time he would be referred to counseling for his sexual addition. He was a voyeur. I don't want to ruin the movie for someone that has not seen the movie however there were several things about the movie that I feel should not have been a part of the final cut.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie is actually FUNNY! If you'd like to rest your brain for an hour so then go ahead and watch it. It's called blonde and blonder, so don't expect profound and meaningful jokes. What this movie and enjoy all the stereotypes we have about two blondes. It's just a funny movie to watch on a date or with a company of friends (especially if you're not too sober. Lol ) Pamela and Denise are still pretty hot chicks. It's a mistake to judge this movie as a piece of art. C'mon, this movie is about BLONDES! It's supposed to be light, funny and superficial. One more thing, I do not think that girls will appreciate and like this movie but guy definitely will.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.

Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.

I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".

Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime.

"Je suis Maurice Morand, pretre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.

The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ's blood.

Gerard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn't want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.

In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.

The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.

I think that "Le defroque" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history.

+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Although there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.

First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.

There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.

The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production.

Best skip this and watch the two originals.
+++++++++
A:
negative