Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The star of this film is the screenplay. Attention to detail for the period in dress, language ,social mores ( we don't hurt women) and the politics are remarkable. It is a reminder of Kosovo to-day. The subtle pieces in the action scenes are there for an attentive viewer and the choreography of these action sequences is superb. Perhaps this film is to close to the bone of reality to earn the support it should have received. It is like a staircase of increasing violence with well paced pauses of peace and serenity between each step. A great film....
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.

The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.

This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Yes, this IS a horror anthology film and it was a lot of fun! That's because although the film clearly was horror, some of the stories had a light spirit--and there were even occasionally a few laughs. This isn't at all a bad thing as sometimes horror films are a bit stuffy and overly serious. Because of this and because all four of the stories were pretty good, it's one of the better movies of this style I have seen.

The unifying theme that connects each story is the house itself. Four different stories involve people who either rent the home or investigate what happened to the tenants.

The first segment starred Denholm Elliott as a horror writer who has writer's block. So, for a change of scenery, they rent this house. Almost immediately Elliott's block vanishes and he works steadily on a tale about a serial killer. Amazingly, soon after his block vanishes he begins to actually see his fictional character! Again and again, the psychotic killer appears and then disappears--making it seem as if he is losing his mind. This might just be the best of the stories, as the nice twist ending makes the story come alive.

The second, while not bad at all, is probably the weakest. Peter Cushing plays a bachelor who is pining for a girl friend who died some time ago (though the picture of her looked amazingly contemporary). When he enters a chamber of horrors wax museum in town, he sees a wax figure that reminds him of his lost lady and he is both fascinated and scared by this. Later, a friend (Joss Ackland) visits and he, too, sees the figure and is entranced by it. This all leads to an ending that, frankly, was a bit of a letdown.

Christopher Lee then stars as an incredibly harsh and stern father to a pathetic little girl. During most of this segment, Lee seemed like an idiot, but in the end you can understand his demeanor. Though slow, this one ended very well.

The fourth segment was the silliest and was meant to parody the genre. Jon Pertwee (the third "Doctor" from the DR. WHO television series) is a very temperamental actor known for his portrayals of Dracula. However, nothing is right about the film according to him and in a fit of pique, he stomps off the set to find better props for this vampire film. It's actually pretty interesting that he played this role, as it seemed like a natural for Christopher Lee who played Dracula or other vampires a bazillion times (give or take a few). I enjoyed Pertwee's line when he basically said that Lee's and other recent incarnations of Dracula were all crap compared to Bela Lugosi's! Perhaps this is why Lee didn't take this part! Despite some very silly moments, it was very entertaining and fun--possibly as good or better than the first segment.

Considering that the film started and ended so well, had excellent acting and writing, it's hard not to like this film.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new "Dukes" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)"You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is." Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was "HAZZARD." Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.
+++++++++
A:
negative