Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A May day 1938 when happen a huge rally celebrating Hitler's visit to Rome serves as the backdrop for a love story between Antoniette(Sophia Loren)married to fascist(John Vernon) and Gabriel(Marcello Mastroianni). She's a boring housewife with several sons and he's a unhappy, solitary homosexual fired from radio and pursued by the fascists. She's left alone in her home when her spouse must to attend the historical celebration. Then both develop a very enjoyable relationship in spite of their differences. The film is set on the historic meeting Fuher Hitler and Duce Mussolini along with others authorities as Count Ciano and King Victor Manuel III, describing the events by a radio-voice in off which sometimes is irritating.

It's a romantic drama carried out with sense and sensibility. An unrelentingly passionate romance between two conflicting characters. Magnificent performances from two pros make a splendid movie well worth seeing. Of course Ruggero Macarri and Ettore Scola's sensible screenplay results in ever interesting, elaborate and sentimental. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Pascualino De Santis. Emotive musical score by Armando Trovajoly with sensitive leitmotif. The film won deservedly Golden Globes 1978 to best Foreign Film.

Director Scola's imagination stretches to light up the limited scenarios where are developing the drama. Usually his films take place on a few stages and are semi-theatrical. For example : Le Bal(1982) uses a French dance-hall to illustrate the changes in society 2)Nuit of Varennes(1983) a stagecoach is the scenario where meet an unlikely group as Thomas Paine, Luis XVI and Marie Antoinette who fled from revolutionary Paris 3) The family(1987)all take place in the family's grand old Roman flat; and of course 4)Una Giornata Particulare or A special day where Loren and Mastroianni strikes up a marvelous relationship into their respective apartments and at the flat roof.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I loathed this film. The original Phantasm had such wonderful ambiance and mystery. Like many 70s horror flicks, it looked and felt like some creepy, unfinished documentary. Phantasm II, from the late 80s, pumped up the action, but maintained this nice attention to mood. Sadly, Phantasm III is just awful. It tediously explains all of the weird happenings in the previous films, which diminishes rather than expands their power. It shamelessly degrades imagery from the first Phantasm like a cheap reenactment of the original. There are so many flying spheres in this movie that they seem more like household pests than menacing death orbs. Hundreds hang from the ceiling like Christmas balls swaying in the draft. Didn't anyone-- the prop master, the DP, the editor, the director-- notice or care that they looked so crummy? Even worse, Phantasm III presents one corny, unfunny joke after another. How different from the intensity of the first film. The original Phantasm used humor to relieve its relentless focus on death. Phantasm III uses death to set up countless cheap jokes about Reggie's horniness: several refer to the film's "flying balls" ha-ha, oh, I get it, balls. Maybe the crew got a kick out of these jokes, but they are on us.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.

For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.

The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Imagine the scenario - you are at the movie theater only because you are in Washington for the weekend and it's raining and you're finished with the Museums. You think you might go see the Sarah Marshall movie as the trailer look so so and you don't have to engage your brain. It's sold out. Options? - The Bank Job, In Bruges, The Leatherheads or Prom night. You've seen the Bank Job (suprisingly decent heist movie that) and In Bruges (again, pretty good) so you're down to two. You don't fancy watching Clooney or the nice one from the Office run around in 1930 football uniforms, so you go see Prom Night right? Wrong. You take the $8.50, walk up to a stranger in the street and ask him to punch you in the face for $8.50. It would be money better spent.

It actually plays like more of a comedy than a horror/thriller or whatever it is supposed to be. If I was financing that movie and they showed me that as a final cut I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both. An insult to anyone's intelligence... my roommate was laughing out loud most of the movie, as for the acting, they might as well have cast robots (or maybe dogs) in the roles, they would have been more realistic. The detective has to be possibly the worst actor I have ever seen (Ben Affleck and Hayden Christansan (I hate his acting so much I don't care how you spell his name) you are relieved on your title(s))

So in summary 'not good'
+++++++++
A:
negative