Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A compelling, honest, daring, and unforgettable psychological horror film that touches on the painful experiences of pain caused by rape - "Descent" is a film that went under-the-radar due to its lack of distribution because, frankly, the film is so brutal in its depictions, that if it had been released theatrically, it may have met itself to some strong biased hate.

The film deserves to be discovered for, not only its dark themes, and not only for its amazing direction and authentic style - but most of all for its performances. Chad Faust is absolutely stunning, bringing enough sickness and enough vulnerability to make one, not relate to, but understand this fractured man with a twisted perspective on his sexuality with not only the women he rapes, but also the fragile insecurities deep within his own self. It's a supporting performance that is so complex, brave, and emotional on Faust's part. And hard to forget.

However, the standout is Rosario Dawson, whose performance here is an absolute revelation. A tour-de-force of realistic dramatic tics, and one of the most subtle, yet loud-as-can-be performances in quite some time. While Dawson is seen in some good supporting performances in some great-to-bad films, she proves here she has what it takes to deliver some emotionally sweeping and moving performances, believably and thematically.

One of the best films of its year (and 2007 was a strong one) - had this underrated and intelligent film hit theatrical release, I would be screaming praises for it, as well as Dawson and Faust. Too bad it was way too blunt for a widespread appeal. Films like this deserve better!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.

The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.

The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no "coming of age" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The cinematic interests in the British monarchy continues with The Young Victoria (1837 to 1901), after having seen in recent years, the efforts with Keira Knightley's The Duchess, Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth films, and Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman's take on the Boleyn sisters with The Other Boleyn Girl. More contemporary stories would include Helen Mirren's award winning portrayal of The Queen on the current reign of Queen Elizabeth II at the turn of Princess Diana's death.

Each of the films mentioned featured stunning actresses with acting gravitas (ok, so some may dispute Johansson) or were the flavour of their moment, and each film had a definitive moment in their historical character's legacy that it becomes a no brainer to have those events featured, and in fact Elizabeth had enough to span two films. However, The Young Victoria, as the title already suggests, is a lite-version of the young queen's life, and if you're looking for that definitive event, or the staple political intrigue that plague all royal households and their dealings with shady, self-serving politicians, unfortunately there's nothing of depth here.

That's not to say The Young Victoria is without. Directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallee (best known for CRAZY) and written by Julian Fellowes, this film chronicles in very plain terms, ,the life and times of Victoria (Emily Blunt, soon becoming the new It girl) when she was a child, the troubles she faced before Coronation such as the eagerness of her mom The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her adviser Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) to appoint themselves as joint-Regent to her throne, as already planned for by reigning King William (Jim Broadbent). As if that wasn't enough, the political power play enters the picture with Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) being a Prime Minister-in-waiting trying to gain the trust of the new Queen, and subtly plants his own trusted allies into positions within the palace. On one hand you'd understand the need for a young, and new Queen to have trusted people in key positions, but on the other, are they really acting in her interests, or in the interests of others?

Even this angle of intrigue creeps into her romantic story with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), where their relationship forms the bulk of the second half of the film, and pretty much everything already included in the trailers. For both, they've been brought up under the influence of others, and told each step of the way exactly what to do. Even their union may seem like a firm registration of an alliance, if not for both lovers recognizing their common need to establish their own grounding, and to do so with the help of each other. Instead of being pawns, there's this constant search and probing of opportunities to break out of stifling, and at times absurd, rules and regulations. Trust also becomes a much valued commodity, and loyalty too can be traded for wanting to set the slate clean.

However, all these themes become but a breeze through the narrative, from childhood to romance, marriage and children. In fact, there's so much fast-forwarding here, especially the last few minutes filled with inter-titles, that it actually leaves the audience wanting for more, and room of course for another movie, which I suspect would probably not see the light of day, but perhaps a television series might pick up on the film's response, and come out with a mini-series or such. It's a pity that all the effort here in ensuring the gorgeous costumes, sets and art direction would be confined to a film that's quite lightweight in theme and brief mention of issues, that they don't really challenge the protagonists in order to allow for some overcoming of character-defining adversary.

With its star-studded cast, one would expect more, but one would be left wanting more instead. Recommended for those who are ever curious about Kings and Queens in the British Monarchy, only as a complement to other more engaging stories available in the other films already mentioned.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?
+++++++++
A:
negative