Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The motion picture was, in all likelihood, made in the year 1930 and released in 1931. I would surmise that talking motion pictures had great difficulty in making the transition from the silent era. Nevertheless, this particular Zane Grey plot appears to be very weak. Also, Gary Cooper was probably just learning to act. The result is something that would not be acceptable by today's standards. For 1931, maybe. For 2004, not acceptable. Some of the actors performed well. Sadly, the Indians always get the short end in these early westerns. They were living on the land long before the white man came, but according to twisted history, they had no right to defend themselves.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Geez, another Lifetime movie, but once again isn't exactly the worst movie in the world, but far from the best. I think the main problem is that it's pretty obvious who is responsible for what, and it's generally fairly predictable. Worse yet, some of the flashbacks ended up being confusing, and the viewer is left wondering "Okay, how much am I supposed to care?" One thing I did like is that the movie goes to show you that it's never THAT simple as "the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad", and sometimes it IS evil vs evil rather than good vs evil. Hadley didn't do what she did out of a sense of justice, she did it because she considered herself entitled to a job for being family, AND to eliminate the competition. As for Alicia, it simply proves that a victim isn't always a good person. Some of them really do "have it coming", even if "it" was a painful, horrible death. "The Burning Bed" is a great example of this, but the difference is that the vile man in "The Burning Bed" got exactly what he deserved. But, did Alicia "have it coming"? Some will say that she did, but others don't agree, and the law generally doesn't either.

As for acting, it's a mixed bag. Some do a good job, like Mia, but others just came across as indifferent to their roles. They were mostly wooden or simply not convincing. The music was pretty cool though and some of the scenes are nice and steamy, especially if you like girl/girl action. The movie isn't badly shot at all, but given its glaring weaknesses, the strengths are in background, unfortunately.

I've heard rumors of a sequel, but given the years, I doubt it'll happen. But, I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel suddenly appeared. If Alicia is as EVIL, conniving and horrible as people say, then I don't think she'll be thinking, "YAY! I woke up from a coma! Oh, Hadley was responsible? Oh! That's okay! I totally forgive her and want the charges dropped!" No way Hadley would be in jail for long anyway, if she even does any time since no murder actually happened.

Anyway, worth checking out at least once!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Man With the Gun is pretty much forgotten now, but caused a minor storm of media interest back in 1955 when Robert Mitchum turned down both Jett Rink in Giant (which had actually been written for him and which was subsequently substantially reworked) and Charles Laughton's intended version of The Naked and the Dead to make it instead. Despite some obvious production problems and some harsh lighting that occasionally renders both Mitch and Jan Sterling in unflattering tones, it's a terrific dark western that more than stands comparison with his earlier Blood on the Moon as his 'town tamer' sets to work on a town that never had the chance to grow up before getting run down by the local badmen before turning out to possibly be almost as bad as the men he dispatches. Certainly his way of dealing with news of a death in the family burning a saloon to the ground and goading its manager into trying to kill him doesn't inspire much confidence in his stability. As well as a good script and a surprisingly good supporting turn from the usually irritating but here well cast Henry Hull, it also boasts a strikingly good early Alex North score, which even includes an early workout for one of his tormented emotional cues that would later turn up in Spartacus.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.

An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.

This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.
+++++++++
A:
negative