Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven".
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be one of the more (most!)open-minded movie-viewers...Movies are my passion, and I am a big regular at my local cult-movie-rental-place...I also feel the need to add that they often ask ME for advice about movies whenever I get there, and i never seem to be able to leave the place without having had an elaborate discussion or exchange of ideas about what is going on in the cult-movie-area...I love to rent strange stuff, and that is exactly why this movie was recommended by one of the guys at the cult-movie-video-place.He told me he thought I had to see this, and since the cover said something about it being a movie with a Jodorowsky(one of my favorites!)atmosphere, I rented it.

The vote I gave here is not really fair, because I did not think it was awful, I just did not know how to rate it otherwise. A question mark would have been more appropriate...

This is the first and only film that literally made me sick to my stomach: I actually felt physically ill! Am I the only one whose stomach literally turned? Still I did not want to turn it off, or maybe I just couldn't because I was fascinated in a nasty way...

I do not ever wanna see this movie again.

Not awful,a 1 as I said.Just not my cup of tea(or wodka for that matter)...
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Although this film put Davis on the map due to her brilliantly intense performance as the illiterate guttersnipe waitress/prostitute Mildred Rogers, this film is strangely unsatisfying to me as a whole. The acting is indeed fine in most every respect. What I cannot fathom for the life of me is just how or why Phillip, a sensitive, well-bred young man would take the constant abuse this tramp constantly dishes out towards him: I find his naive tolerance quite ridiculously unbelievable in certain respects. Yes, I know he is a sensitive club-footed, introverted intellectual. But Davis is such a venomous witch that nobody that cultured would tolerate her attitude or actions and make it believable. Davis is astounding in her role: yes, she may go overboard in her histrionics now and then, but it's a vividly creative portrayal any which way you look at it. Too bad she wasn't playing a gangster's moll. Her character would have been completely believable as a tramp among low-lifes!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:First of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.

However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.

In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast
+++++++++
A:
negative