Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.

The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.

Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.

"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.

At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.

Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.

Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The team of Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack produced a documentary of 50,000 Bakhtiari people and their animals on the Summer migration to winter grazing. The basic worth of this film today is as a time capsule of a "forgotten people" and how they lived during what we in the West knew as the "roaring twenties." A more drastic contrast could not be imagined. Raging river and barefoot mountain crossings are brutally realistic and the animals that disappear under the water do in fact die. To make sure that the audience of the time believed that the story took place, a signed certificate of authenticity is offered up at the end. The version that I saw had fascinating Iranian music that can stand alone and be appreciated without the film. Having said all this, the film is probably of more value to the anthropologist than the casual viewer in search of a good evening's entertainment. The crew had just barely sufficient stock to take the shots that they recorded and there is no fancy camera work resulting from multiple re-takes. The Western inter-titles detract from the experience but are in fact a part of the record since they demonstrate how Hollywood tried to put their spin on the lives of an indigenous peoples lives so that they would be appreciated by the audience of the day. Off-duty entertainment by desert police becomes a "policeman's ball." The producers went on to make the docu-drama Chang (1927) and the totally commercial King Kong (1933). The migration theme is used again in People of the Wind (1976) and in Himalaya (1999). Recommended for those who know in advance what they are getting into -- and then highly recommended for them.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:It takes a Serbian or at least a Balkan familiarity to understand and enjoy many of the situations, characters and jokes of 'Zavet' as well as of many other films of Kusturica. See for example the opening scenes, with the remote village in the Serbian mountains, with the low-tech devices that defend the integrity and way of life of the inhabitants, the nostalgia for the good days of the Communist rule, and the awakening of the young brat watching his nude teacher at the sounds of the Soviet hymn. Kusturica not only tries to depart from the tragic history of Serbia described in his previous movies, but creates a whole world of himself in the process.

This is not a political film or not an explicit political film in any case. It's a fun film before all. Kusturica creates a set of characters that we care about. Music plays an active role in this film same as in all his other movies. His style is direct and grotesque, we now what he feels about his characters and we know that he wants us to feel the same. The space he develops melds present, history and magic, and the colours seem to be of a Douanier Rousseau of modern cinema.

This is not a perfect film either. The principal flaw is the length, some editing and shortening would have been useful, as at some point in time the director seems to have run out of ideas and repetitions show up. It is yet one of the most catching, amusing, moving films that I have seen lately.
+++++++++
A:
positive