Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I remember watching ATTACK when it first came out and caught it again recently. The sci fi channel has run worse, but not by much. A shameless ripoff of Jurassic Park, ATTACK substitutes sabertooth cats for dinosaurs. And they are on the loose, devouring as many extras as possible. The CGI is pretty bad, and closeups of prosthetic cat heads are laughable. We get some gore, which helps a little. Wait until you see how the mad scientist who started this whole mess gets it. Other than Robert Carradine, who has very little to do, the cast is unknown. Apparently this was shot in Fiji. Nice work if you can get it. Reminds me of all those low-budget monster STVs that were popular in the 80s and 90s.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Don't listen to the many acerbic and derisory comments heaped upon this film.....simply put, as regards ninja movies, this my friends is about as good as it gets!

Yes it's silly, yes the acting and script are admittedly absolutely atrocious, but by gum - it's so much bloody fun! In fact, as is often the case with B-Movies, the horrendous 'acting' (which in the case of the movie in question, is truly amongst the worst I have ever had the joy to behold!) and ridiculous 'plot' actually only serve to elevate the enjoyment level ten fold.

Obviously the fight scenes are the main attraction in this though and for the most part I'm pleased to say, they're very well choreographed, especially the final showdown (during which we witness that ninja are not ostensibly constrained by the normal laws of gravity....)

Trust me on this, if you are a fan of ninja movies and you have not yet seen Sakura Killers, then you are truly missing out on what is in my opinion, one of the true jewels in the crown of the genre.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:As far as films go, this is likable enough. Entertaining characters, good dialogue, interesting enough story. I would have really quite liked it had I not been irritated immensely whilst watching at the utter disrespect it shows the city it is set in.

Glasgow. In Scotland. Yet every character is English (save for Sean's girlfriend, who is Dutch). Scottish accents are heard only fleetingly in menial jobs & roles. As a Scottish woman (& as a viewer who likes her "real life" films to be a bit more like real life) I really don't think it would have hurt to use any one of the countless talented Scottish actors...or at least got English ones who could toss together a decent accent! The futile attempt at using the word "wee" a few times did nothing but to further the insult.
+++++++++
A:
negative