Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:One can only imagine the film Mr. Welles might have finished without the interference of the studio! This film is a flawed Welles, but worth every minute of it because one can see the greatness of perhaps America's best motion picture director of all times!

We can see the toll it took on Orson Welles the filming of this movie. The story has a lot of holes in it, perhaps because of the demands of the studio executives that didn't trust the director.

It is curious by reading some of the opinions submitted to IMDB that compare Orson Welles with the Coen brothers, Roman Polanski, even Woody Allen, when it should be all of those directors that must be regarded as followers of the great master himself. No one was more original and creative in the history of American cinema than Mr. Welles. Lucky are we to still have his legacy either in retrospective looks such as the one the Film Forum in New York just ended, or his films either on tape or DVD form.

Rita Hayworth was never more lovingly photographed than here. If she was a beauty with her red hair, as a blonde, she is just too stunning for words. Everett Sloan and Glenn Anders made an excellent contribution to the movie.

The only thing that might have made this film another masterpiece to be added to Orson Welles body of work, was his own appearance in it. Had he concentrated in the directing and had another actor interpret Michael O'Hara, a different film might have been achieved altogether. Orson Welles has to be credited for being perhaps a pioneer in taking the camera away from the studio lot into the street. The visuals in this film are so amazing that we leave the theater after seeing this movie truly impressed for the work, the vision and the talent he gave us.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:As Alan Rudolph's "Breakfast of Champions" slides into theaters with little fanfare and much derision it makes me think back to 1996 when Keith Gordon's "Mother Night" came out. Now for all the talk of Kurt Vonnegut being "unfilmable" it's surprising that he has gotten two superb cinematic treatments (the other being "Slaughter-house Five"). "Mother Night" is certainly one of the most underappreciated films of the decade and I cannot understand why. It's brilliant! It stays almost entirely faithful to Vonnegut's book (without being stilted or overly literary) and adds to it a poetry that is purely cinematic. How many film adaptations of any author's work can claim that? Vonnegut himself even puts in a cameo appearance towards the end of the film, and can you ask for a better endorsement than that? Not only is it a beautiful film, it is a beautifully acted, written and directed film and it is among my picks for the top five or so American films of the 1990s. It's a mournful, inspired, surreal masterpiece that does not deserve to be neglected. I would sincerely encourage anyone to see "Mother Night" - it doesn't even take a familiarity with Vonnegut's work to fully appreciate it (as "Slaughter-house Five" sometimes does). It is a powerful, affecting piece of cinema.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Sleuth didn't need a remake. It's a thoroughly well made film that stands up well to this day. However, given that the modern day remake machine is currently in full swing; I really can't say I'm surprised to see the film updated for modern audience. The plot remains identical to the original film and at its core we have the story of a young man, Milo Tindle, who goes off to see an older man, Andrew Wyke, to discuss a divorce as the younger man is having an affair with the older man's wife. From there, a game of cat and mouse ensues. Its clear right from the outset that director Kenneth Branagh wanted to add a different touch to this film and he does so by way of the central location, which has been changed from the charming games-ridden country house of the original to a technical marvel kitted out with layers of security equipment. I'm glad that the director chose to make this change as nobody wants to see a remake that directly copies of the original; plus there's the fact that the location is well used and always nice to look at. Unfortunately, however, the positive elements of Sleuth 2007 end there.

The original film was over two hours long, while this remake is only just a shade over eighty minutes. Naturally, therefore, that means that this version has less about it; and unfortunately it's the characters that suffer. The plot is also rushed and we get into the first twist in the tale far too quickly and before we are given any chance to actually understand why and how these events can be taking place. The film does not build the characters, or the rapport between them, enough to make sure that their relationship makes sense. One major thing that has been changed about the older character is his obsession; in the original he was obsessed with games which turned out to be VERY important once the twists come into play. Here he has some kind of security fetish that doesn't really mean anything by the end. Kenneth Branagh's handling of the film allows for a classy score but the class ends there. The original thrived on it, but this film is happy merely to soil itself with expletives on numerous, and mostly unwarranted, occasions; which cheapen the whole thing. The final twist in the tale is completely different to how it was in the original and ensures that the film boils down to a really hideous conclusion. After spending two hours with the original I understood, respected and liked both characters presented in the film - after eighty minutes of this, I hated them both. I do have some respect for Branagh for not merely rolling out a carbon copy of the original film; but this is not a good adaptation of the great Anthony Shaffer play.
+++++++++
A:
negative