Problem: This review is like what?

Review:There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.

Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.

The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.

This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.

The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.

This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:To me movies and acting is all about telling a story. The story of David and Bethsheba is a tragedy that is deep and can be felt by anyone who reads and understands the biblical account. In this movie I thought the storytelling by Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward were at their best. To know and understand the story of David and his journey to become the King of Israel, made this story all the more compelling. You could feel his lust for a beautiful woman, Gregory Peck showed the real human side of this man who in his time was larger than life. Susan Hayward's fear, reluctance, but then obedience to his authority as her King was beautifully portrayed by her. One could also feel David's anguish the nigh that Uriah spent the night at the gate instead of at home. As well as the sadness when he was killed in battle. Raymond Massey's powerful and authoritative condemnation of the King made me feel his anger. The sets were real enough, and the atmosphere believable. All in all I think this was one of the best movies of it's kind. I gave it a rating of ten.
+++++++++
A:
positive