Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is the second Baby Burlesk short to be released, and probably the most popular one, is a spoof of the 1926 silent film What Price Glory.

I watched this and I do not understand the kiddie-porn that is being claimed. It is just a cute little film. I have seen family shows that I grew up watching in the '80's and '90's that had little girls dressed more provocatively acting in a 'mature manner'. It was more provocative because they WEREN'T dressed in diapers. There's nothing provocative about a diaper unless you have one of those fetishes. (just a joke) I read that description of the movie and where it states only a pedophile would enjoy watching this. That is sick. To me, if you watch this and are bothered by it, then maybe you need to look into your own psyche and try to figure out why it bothers you. It is an innocent film that was made as a parody of another film. All of the B.B. films were parodies, nothing more. The parodies/spoofs of today are graphic in nature and have true almost pornographic scenes and quite vile language. Shouldn't those be more appalling? I can watch those without issue, but they sometimes take children's stories and turn them into filth on those parodies. That is what should get under your skin. Not that they babified (not a word, I know) an adult movie from 1926, because we know how PORNOGRAPHIC those silent films were, huh? Not to mention those 'Forbidden Hollywood Pre-Code era films' so vile and filthy. They would NEVER make such filth today? (note the sarcasm)
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:One thing i can say about this movie is well long, VERY LONG! I actually recently purchased this movie a couple of months ago seeing that there was a new version coming out. I was happy to find that it was made in 1978 because The 70's (even though i never lived in them) is actually one of my favourite decades, especially for the music! when i watched this movie the story was actually very good at the start but then after about 50 mins it started to get very boring and repetitive. i will admitt the animation did impress me! it was nothing i had ever seen before and was well pretty cool to see. but the movie honestly could of been a bit better, it could of had alot more talking and story to it than just 15 to 20 minute scenes that just had wierd fighting. then for the last 5 or 10 minutes the movie picked up and got good again but ended unexpectedly. in my opinion i thought it was EXTREMELY long. i know its 13 minutes over 2 hours and that is still long for a cartoon but since it was boring for most of the movie, it made it seem like it was 4 hours long!!!! but overall it is an okay film i guess and i will watch it again on one of those "nothing to do days". i will see the new one and i hope it is better!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This 1953 Sam Fuller movie contains some of his best work, and its sad that he couldn't continue to get the backing of major Hollywood studios to do his stuff. The story line goes something like this. A tough hard broad (read prostitute) is riding the subway one hot summer day, and gets her pocketbook picked by Skip McCoy. What Skip (and the dame) don't realize is that she is also carrying some microfilm to be passed to commie spies. This opening shot without dialogue, and mostly in tight close-ups is a beaut,one of the many that Fuller uses throughout the movie. Playing the babe known as Candy is Jean Peters, who was never better nor better looking. One forgets how beautiful she was, and she handles this role very well. The Pickpocket is played by Richard Widmark, who had already made his mark, and set his style with 1947's Kiss Of Death as the crazy creep with the creepy laugh, and although he's a little "softer" here, he's still scary. These hard edged characters do have soft spots here and there, but its noir and nasty all the way. The standout performance belongs to the wonderful Thelma Ritter,who plays Moe the stoolie saving up her dough to pay for her own funeral. Ritter received a well deserved Oscar nomination for her performance, but lost out to the boring but popular performance of Donna Reed as the B girl (read prostitute) in "From Here To Eternity." Hollywood loves it when a good girl goes bad, and loves to Oscar them even though their performance is usually awful. See for instance Shirley Jones in "Elmer Gantry. Set among the docks and dives of New York City, with crisp black and white photography by the great Joe MacDonald,and some very good art direction. Especially good is the set representing the New York City subways and Widmark's shack near the river. Made at the height of the cold war and red scare, the villian of the piece is the ordinary looking commie, played by Richard Kiley who is much more dangerous than the pickpocket who is a criminal but is just trying to make a living and above all is a loyal American.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Dance, Fools, Dance" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.

Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.

It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and "Dance, Fools, Dance" is no exception.
+++++++++
A:
positive