Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.

What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene.

The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the "stage", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).

The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the "heat is on", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the "saitn" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.

Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A-
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Just too many incidents of violence.

The film goes from one scene to another, and in nearly every one violence erupts.

Now I am not one who is shocked by violence, and to me a film without a fight in it has something missing. But, please, not one after another. My reaction was not shock or horror, it was: "Here we go again." There is some semblance of a story in between the scenes of violence, but two thirds of the way through the film I had switched off completely, and couldn't wait for the end.

If this is the best the film makers can do, they should find something else to do with their miserable lives, like making shoes or delivering mail.
+++++++++
A:
negative