Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.

Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.

As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.

All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.

It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.

Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the uber-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.

Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.

This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).

This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.

+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:

I suppose this is not the best film ever made but I voted it at 10 stars all the same. Mainly because of my feelings at the end. I and all the people around me were simply touched. This is something you don't often feel . We are all getting a bit cynical and fed up with over sentimentality, lazy manipulation or preaching in modern films. The story of the film centres around Jane a young woman in the last stages of MND and the friendship that grows between her and Richard, a man on the verge of a breakdown. This could have so easily been a dull and worthy piece but it is so humorous, humane and lacking in sentimentality that it wins you over completely and against the odds is a feel good movie.

The acting from Branagh and Bonham-Carter is superb especially the latter who is always believable and strong in her role. The chemistry between the two also lifts the movie.

The title comes from Richards masterpiece, a plane made of junk and his old paintings. Flying here is a symbol for both Richards and Janes living life to the full so that one can carry on and the other can face the end.

A beautiful and funny movie that I would recommend to anyone. don't let the subject matter put you off.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.
+++++++++
A:
negative