Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.

RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Considering that I felt like picking up a new Jet Li film to see some but kicking and brainless hand to hand fighting, I grabbed this title.

Unfortunatly, this movie contains more gun battles (ala Chow Yun Fat but nowhere near as good), than Jet Li and company's acrobatic fighting. Thus it was a let down.

The faucet fighting was interesting and even funny, considering this was something totaly unexpected in a Jet Li film for me, more on the line of say Jackie Chan.

But alas I'd recommend Fist of Legend, Tai Chi Master, or even the Enforcer over this dissapointment.

Rating 4 for martial arts Rating 3 for overall movie score
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O'Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off

I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn't until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen's stature wouldn't star in a TVM , I mean that's like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn't Bob .... ?

Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you've got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it's not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it

I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it's a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you'd expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I've read one comment which labeled this film "trash" and "a waste

of time." I think this person got their political undies tugged a bit

too much.

I just rented the new Criterion DVD's of both Yellow and Blue.

These films--although hardly great--have at least become of

historical interest as to the so-called "radical student

political-social movement"of the late '60s.

I hadn't seen either picture and from their notorious reputation, I

was expecting some real porn (there isn't any.) There is frontal

nudity (including the still verboten frontal male nudity (automatic

NC-17--the Orwellian-X) in the U.S. But I wasn't expecting the films

in-your-face democratic socialist message.

Though it tends to the simplistic , I thought it occassionally made

its points well. Both films occassionally had me laughing out loud

and the director's commentary made it clear there was plenty of

parody in the film. Especially the supposedly "pornographic" sex

scenes. The first such scene is very realistic. The lead couple is

clumsy, inept, funny and endearing in their first copulation scene.

The second--which caused the most complaints--has faked

cunnilingus and fellatio. And the last is the end of an angry fight,

that is believable.

The extras include an informative introduction to the film, an

interview with the original American distributor and his attorney,

excerpts from trial testimony in the U.S. and a "diary" commentary

by the director on some scenes.

This is the film that "blue noses" wouldn't let alone and led to the

pivotal "prurient interest with no social redeeming value" standard

that, thankfully, still stands.

Those with an interest in the quirks of history will find this a must

see.
+++++++++
A:
positive