Problem: This review is like what?

Review:There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...

Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.

Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...

...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.

It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.

There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them?

As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...

In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die.
+++++++++
A:
negative