Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I rated this film 7/10 which is an average of 8/10 for screenplay, direction and 1944 production values and 6/10 for acting.My acting rating in turn was calculated at 4/10 for all the screen characters except for that played by heroine Ella Raines as Carol Richman who was excellent at 8/10.Also I commend Thomas Gomez as Inspector Burgess whose character convinces that he personally does not think the guilty verdict on Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) was just in view of his naive alibi.These two then form an alliance to prove Scott's alibi.

I have this film on a "Suevia Film Noir Cine Negro" DVD in Spanish as "La Dama Desconocida" with the original soundtrack "Ingles" as an alternative language, since despite searching I could not find a wholly English version.I was however anxious to see another performance by Ella Raines after being impressed with her performance as a heroine in "Impact" playing a sole female garage proprietor.Here Ella performs another heroic role believing in the innocence of her engineer boss and refuses several suggestions that she should return to her home in Kansas (her boss's pet name for her) before solving the missing alibi.The fact that she is secretly in love with her boss is a little hard to believe since he formally just seemed to have had a formal business relationship with her.He had however designed children's homes and playgrounds so I suppose "family man" had lit up in Carol's brain.

In the 1940s with "the film code" in operation, producers could only portray sex through metaphors and here it is done in the form of furious drumming played by Elisha Cooke jnr.Carol dolls herself up as a girl of easy virtue in an attempt to lure the drummer into giving her information about "The Phantom Lady" alibi.The other main character, Jack Marlow (an associate of Scott Henderson) is played by Franchot Tone whose performance I found too theatrical and wondered why Carol, for instance, did not notice him constantly and strangely admiring his hands.Here the screenplay should have been improved and provided more suspense as these theatrical moves telegraphed the plot far too early to the audience.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply

pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds

through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even

briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The characters are cliched and predictable, with everyone being either snow-white pure or wholly evil. The acting is too stilted for it to be bad in an amusing, over-the-top way. It's doubly disappointing if you're a Bette Davis fan, because her character is not a typically fun Bette-Davis-type character; she just gets to frown pensively a lot.

On the whole, neither my wife nor I found the movie to be interesting, moving or enjoyable at all.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.

Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.
+++++++++
A:
negative